search_prefab_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: auto-detailing based on result count, override via 'detail' parameter, and query matching logic. It is transparent about the tool's read-only nature implicitly.

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 relatively long but front-loaded with purpose. It repeats some parameter details from the schema. Could be more concise by reducing redundancy while retaining essential behavioral context.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description covers query behavior, auto-detail mode, and parameter defaults. The output format is not explained, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have schema descriptions), and the description adds value for query (explains OR matching) and detail (auto behavior). However, the 'components' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, representing a gap.

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 'Search the Prefab component library' and explains that it provides exact argument names, accepted values, and usage examples. It distinguishes from the sibling skill ('patterns and layout') to establish unique purpose.

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 specifies when to use the tool: 'before writing component code'. It explains query behavior (space-separated OR matching) and automatic vs. compact detail mode. While it does not explicitly list alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient given no similar siblings.

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