search

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

It discloses recursion, the result cap, and the default limit of 100, adding useful behavioral context. But with no annotations, it leaves gaps: it does not mention ordering, case sensitivity, the meaning of root or maxDepth, or the return format.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, every word contributes meaning. Excellent conciseness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter coverage, the description is not sufficient for a 5-parameter tool. Missing details about root, maxDepth, and the response shape reduce the agent's ability to invoke it 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains query (name substring), limit, and optional classFilter, but completely omits root and maxDepth, leaving two parameters unexplained.

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 specifies the action (recursive search), target (instances), filter (name substring, optional className), and constraint (limit). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_children and get_by_path.

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 the appropriate use case—searching instances by name substring—without explicitly contrasting alternatives or providing when-not-to-use guidance. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool appropriately.

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