search_sdk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions the return format, not whether the operation is read-only, requires any permissions, or has side effects. For a search tool, this is a minimal gap, but without annotations, more context would be expected to assure the agent of safety or any limitations.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and return values with no filler. Every clause contributes useful information, making it highly efficient.

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 simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential operation and return format. It does not mention details like case sensitivity, matching behavior, or pagination, but these are not critical for a basic search. The absence of annotations and output schema is partially offset by the clear description, though some behavioral nuance is missing.

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 schema has a single parameter 'query' with zero description coverage. The tool description explains that the query is a keyword searched across name and description, which gives meaningful context beyond the schema's bare type string. This compensates well for the lack of parameter documentation.

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: searching SDK methods by keyword across name and description, and it specifies the return fields (name, description, SDK version). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_devices and get_device, which serve different purposes.

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 does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this tool versus the siblings. However, the action of searching is clear, and an agent could infer that this is for finding a specific method rather than listing all devices. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing, so it falls into 'implied usage' rather than clear guidance.

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