Search Shelf

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by implying text-based searching across files, but doesn't disclose details like search scope, performance, or output format. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to grasp immediately.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, read-only), annotations provide safety info, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is reasonably complete. However, it could benefit from more detail on parameter usage or search behavior to fully compensate for low schema coverage.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'text' and 'files in a shelf', which loosely relates to 'query' and 'shelf_id', but doesn't explain the purpose of parameters like 'mode', 'case_sensitive', or 'max_matches'. It adds some meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage 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 the action ('Search for text') and target resource ('across files in a shelf'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_shelf_tree' or 'read_shelf_file', which might also involve shelf content access, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_shelf_tree' or 'read_shelf_file', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It's a basic statement of function without contextual usage advice.

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