search_registry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the return content (tasks, SLIs, env vars, deployment metadata) and implies no side effects (search is read-only). No contradictions. Could mention pagination or rate limits but is sufficient.

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?

Four concise sentences, each contributing purpose, skill link, usage guidance, and return information. No fluff, well-structured, and front-loaded with key information.

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 search tool with an existing output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, and return content. It could add search syntax tips but is largely complete given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the return shape but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 searches a registry for reusable automation, specifying the resource (CodeBundle Registry) and action (search). It distinguishes from siblings like deploy_registry_codebundle and get_registry_codebundle by focusing on finding codebundles rather than deploying or retrieving specific ones.

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 advises using this tool before writing custom scripts, indicating a workflow 'search → deploy'. While it doesn't compare to alternative search tools like search_workspace, the usage guidance 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.