search_prefab_components

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: OR-matching of space-separated terms, automatic switching between detailed and compact results based on match count, and the effect of the `detail` and `limit` parameters. No contradictions.

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 and concise. It starts with a clear one-line summary, explains usage, then lists parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (conditional detail mode, multiple parameters), the description is highly complete. It covers input behavior, parameter roles, and edge cases. Output schema exists, so return values are not required.

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 description adds significant meaning to `query`, `detail`, and `limit` (e.g., explaining OR-matching and automatic detail mode), but it completely omits the `components` parameter, which also lacks schema description (coverage 75%). This missing documentation prevents full understanding.

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 purpose: 'Search the Prefab component library.' It specifies that it provides exact argument names, accepted values, and usage examples, distinguishing it from a 'skill' that covers patterns and layout.

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 says when to use this tool: 'Use this tool to look up exact argument names... before writing component code.' It also contrasts with an alternative ('The skill covers patterns and layout'), providing clear guidance.

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