search_templates

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 behavioral disclosure. It confirms this is a GET request (implying read-only), but it does not state what the response contains, whether results are paginated, default ordering, or any side effects. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this falls short of what an agent needs to know about its runtime behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the essential purpose and filters with zero fluff. Every word earns its place; the endpoint is given alongside the verb, and the two filters are called out explicitly. This is exemplary 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?

Given the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits pagination semantics, response shape, relationship to sibling list_templates, and any edge cases. An agent calling this for the first time would know its intent but not enough about expected behavior or how it differs from the near-sibling list_templates.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains categoryId and name as filter criteria, which adds real meaning for two of the four parameters. However, it says nothing about current or pageSize (pagination), leaving half the parameters undocumented beyond their bare names. Partial compensation warrants a middle score.

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 states a specific verb (搜索/search) plus the resource (模板/templates) and even the HTTP endpoint (GET /form-template/search). It also names the two supported filters (categoryId, name), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_templates (which presumably lists all) and get_template_detail (which fetches a single template). This is a precise, non-tautological statement.

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 usage is for searching templates with optional categoryId and name filters. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools like list_templates, get_template_detail, or list_categories. The filtering mention gives an implicit selection criterion, but there is no when-not-to-use or alternative routing.

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