sw_api_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the underlying data sources (api_index.txt typelib dump vs sw_api_index.sqlite help index) and what fields each covers. It stops short of stating read-only nature explicitly or describing result shape/pagination, so it is strong but not exhaustive for a search tool.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then mode behavior, then the hand-off to sw_api_doc. Dense but every clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough to select the right mode and know the data provenance. It omits how results are returned and how 'limit'/'interface' refine output, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 coverage is 75%; the description clarifies what the regex actually matches against (exact name, order and type of each parameter) and frames 'text' as the alternative to 'pattern', adding meaning beyond the schema strings. The 'interface' and 'limit' parameters are not addressed in the description, leaving a minor gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Busca miembros de la API COM de SOLIDWORKS') and explicitly distinguishes the two operating modes ('pattern' vs 'text'), which is the key ambiguity an agent would face. It also names the sibling sw_api_doc as the natural next step once a name is found.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use 'pattern' for regex over the real typelib, use 'text' for free-text search over the official help when you don't know the name, with concrete examples ('bounding box', 'save body as part', 'mass properties'). It also states the follow-up tool, so an agent knows exactly when to reach for this vs alternatives.

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