search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return type ('text listing') and the random mode, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether parameters are mutually exclusive, or the content format of the listing.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose, modes, and output.

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 tool is simple, but with no output schema, the description's characterization of the result as a 'text listing' is vague; it doesn't specify what fields are included or how the listing is formatted. The implied exclusivity of modes is also left unstated.

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 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by using 'or' to imply that query, category, and random are alternative modes, a relationship not stated in the schema. However, it largely mirrors the schema's parameter descriptions otherwise.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('sprite library'), and lists three modes (keyword, category, random) plus the return format. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get' or 'inspect'.

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 implies when to use the tool (searching by keyword/category, or getting a random sprite) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like 'get', nor does it mention exclusion cases.

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