search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond purpose: no result ordering/ranking, no cap on hits, no statement about whether the search spans one Hydra instance or all configured ones.

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 that names the covered entities before the match fields. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all entity types are enumerated. Given a two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers what an agent minimally needs to select and call it.

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 50%: the 'instance' parameter is documented ('omitted uses the default'), but 'query' carries only length constraints. The description partly compensates by saying the query matches names, output paths and derivation paths, which is genuinely useful, though it omits the 2-character minimum and the per-instance scoping.

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?

States a specific verb (search) plus the four resource types covered (projects, jobsets, jobs, builds) and the match fields (name, output, derivation path). That is far more informative than the bare name 'search', but it never distinguishes this tool from the many list_*/get_* siblings that also surface projects and builds.

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?

No statement of when to prefer this tool over list_projects, list_jobsets, or get_build, and no note about the single-instance scoping. The parenthetical match fields hint at free-text lookup, but the agent must infer that on its own.

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