mimicus_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds meaningful context beyond those flags by explaining that a new search fetches fresh data while operationId continues a bounded RAM-only operation, and that native labels and computed similarity stay distinct. This explains the non-idempotent, stateful character of the tool. It still omits why a search is flagged non-read-only and says nothing about rate limits or failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, with no filler. The final sentence ("Native labels and computed similarity remain distinct") is somewhat cryptic, but overall the description is compact for a 16-parameter tool and every sentence carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values are covered, and safety hints come from annotations. However, for a 16-parameter, zero-required, zero-description-coverage tool, the description supplies almost no parameter or selection guidance, which is the largest information gap an agent faces here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 16 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and largely fails. Only operationId semantics are explained; retrieval modes (lexical/hybrid/semantic), providers, query, limit, sourceSort and the remaining ten parameters are never mentioned, leaving the agent to guess at intent and valid combinations.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Find current design references from the seven live source indexes" gives a specific verb (find), resource (design references), and scope (seven live source indexes). It is clearly a retrieval tool, but it never contrasts itself with the closest siblings (mimicus_browse_categories, mimicus_list_sources, mimicus_explore_page), so an agent still has to infer which retrieval entry point applies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The second sentence does give a genuine usage rule: start a new search for fresh data, or pass operationId to continue an existing bounded operation. That is real conditional guidance, but there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over the many sibling browsing/discovery tools, and no exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.