startup_script_search_startup_scripts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it searches by name or content and returns matching scripts, but does not disclose matching semantics (partial versus exact, case sensitivity), pagination, result format details, or whether it filters by any other dimension. The description provides minimal additional behavior beyond the obvious read-only search nature.

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 short and front-loaded, stating the action immediately. It includes a structured Args/Returns layout that is easy to parse, with no redundant phrasing. It could be more concise by trimming the 'Args' label, but overall it is efficient.

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 search tool, the description covers the core action and parameter meaning, and the output schema presumably documents the return list. However, it omits search behavior specifics (e.g., whether search is case-insensitive, partial matches, or if it searches all script types), which an agent may need to set correct expectations.

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 0% description coverage—no description for the 'query' parameter—so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining that query is a 'search term to look for in script names or content', which gives meaningful semantic context beyond the raw type/string. This directly addresses the parameter's purpose.

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 action: 'Search startup scripts by name or content', which is a specific verb with a resource and search scope. It distinguishes from siblings like list_startup_scripts or get_startup_script by the search semantics, but does not explicitly name alternatives to differentiate them further.

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 sibling startup_script tools such as list_startup_scripts, get_startup_script, or get_startup_script_content. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer that search is for locating scripts by term rather than by ID or listing all.

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