solidworks_api_search

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool operates on already-loaded libraries and fails or returns empty otherwise. This dependency is not captured in the annotations (which only state readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds this operational requirement, going beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, highly concise and front-loaded with the core action ('Search loaded API libraries'). The second sentence provides a necessary prerequisite without unnecessary detail. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

It gives specific context about the types of libraries (sldworks.tlb, swconst.tlb, camworks.tlb) and the requirement to load them. Since an output schema is indicated as present, the lack of return-value explanation is acceptable. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope and precondition.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), and the description does not explain the meanings of 'query', 'limit', or 'offset'. While 'limit' and 'offset' are common pagination terms, and 'query' is obvious, the lack of any clarification about search syntax, matching behavior, or pagination defaults leaves ambiguity.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: searching loaded API libraries for interfaces, methods, parameters, and enums. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like solidworks_discover or solidworks_inspect, the specific focus on 'loaded API libraries' and the mention of .tlb files makes its role fairly distinct.

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?

It provides an explicit prerequisite: load a library (sldworks.tlb, swconst.tlb, camworks.tlb, or an add-in DLL) first. This tells the agent when to use the tool (after loading) and implies it should not be used before that. It doesn't mention alternatives or when to choose this over others, but the prerequisite is clear and actionable.

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