Github Search Prefab Components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the search matching behavior (space-separated terms OR-matched), the automatic detail vs. compact mode based on match count, and the ability to override with 'detail'. It also explains the limit parameter's effect. However, it does not disclose behavior for the 'components' parameter, which is a notable omission for full transparency.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear purpose, then usage guidance, then behavior explanation, and ending with parameter details. It is front-loaded with the primary action and efficiently uses paragraphs and bullet points. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 has an output schema (not shown but indicated), so return format explanation is not required. The description covers the search behavior, parameter semantics for most parameters, and provides usage context. However, the 'components' parameter is completely undocumented, which is a gap in completeness for a 4-parameter tool. Otherwise, the description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters are described in the schema). The description adds extra meaning for query (OR-matching and example), detail (automatic threshold), and limit (context). However, the 'components' parameter has no schema description and is not mentioned in the description, leaving a significant gap. The description adds value for the documented parameters but does not compensate for the undocumented one, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Search the Prefab component library.' It uses a specific verb (search) and a clear resource (Prefab component library), and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that 'The skill covers patterns and layout; this tool has the API details.' This effectively differentiates it from the skill-related sibling tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this tool to look up exact argument names, accepted values, and usage examples before writing component code.' It contrasts with 'the skill' as an alternative, indicating this tool is for API details. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name a specific sibling tool as an alternative, but the context is clear enough.

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