Search Prefab Components

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and succeeds. It discloses OR-matching semantics for space-separated terms, automatic detail vs compact mode behavior (≤5 matches threshold), the detail override, and the limit default in detail mode. This is substantial behavioral context beyond just stating 'search.'

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds usage context, then matching/override behavior, then an Args block. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the nuanced automatic-mode behavior easy to parse.

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?

The description covers query semantics, detail behavior, and limits, and an output schema is present, so return values need no explanation. The only meaningful omission is the 'components' parameter, which is left entirely undocumented. For a mostly simple search tool this is a minor but real gap.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the schema's explanations of query, detail, and limit, but adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. The 'components' parameter has no schema description and is never mentioned in the description, leaving a real gap for an agent trying to understand what to pass.

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 states a specific action ('Search the Prefab component library') and clarifies the tool's niche: 'this tool has the API details' while 'the skill covers patterns and layout.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling generate_prefab_ui and makes the search intent unambiguous.

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 description explicitly says to use the tool 'before writing component code' to look up argument names, accepted values, and usage examples. It also contrasts the tool with the broader skill. It does not explicitly name generate_prefab_ui as an alternative, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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