os_search_os_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that matching is partial and the result is a list of matching operating systems. However, it does not cover empty-result behavior, case sensitivity, or confirm the operation has no side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by concise Args and Returns sections. No wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the essential calling contract is present. Still, the lack of any usage comparison and the absence of edge-case details keep it from being fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate; it adds the crucial 'partial match' meaning to the name parameter beyond the bare string type. It is adequate for a single simple parameter, though it could include match-policy examples.

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 that the tool searches operating systems by name, with a concrete verb and resource. The Args note 'partial match' helps differentiate it from an exact-name sibling like os_get_os_by_name, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as os_get_os_by_name, os_list_operating_systems, or os_list_linux_os. The description implies a search use case but provides no exclusions or decision rules.

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