search_commands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The description is a search/read operation, which is implicitly non-destructive, but it doesn't disclose behavior like case-sensitivity, pagination, or whether results are limited across names, descriptions, or both. The limit parameter is documented in schema, so some behavior is self-evident.

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 sentence that is efficient and waste-free. It captures the search functionality in minimal words with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. However, with zero annotations and no usage context, the description could add value by noting that SHELXL has many commands and this is the way to discover available instructions. Given the low parameter complexity and presence of output schema, this is minimally adequate but could be richer.

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 carries full param responsibility. However, with only 2 simple parameters (query, limit) the complexity is low. The description says 'by keyword across names and descriptions' which explains what query matches against, but doesn't explain what 'limit' does beyond schema's default value. Since the schema covers the types and defaults, and the description adds the matching scope, this is adequate.

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+resource ('Search SHELXL instructions') and the scope ('by keyword across names and descriptions'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'list_commands' (which lists all commands) and 'command_help' (which likely shows details for a specific command). It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough.

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 this is for finding SHELXL commands by keyword, versus listing all (list_commands) or getting specific help (command_help). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions. The context is somewhat clear from the sibling names but not explicitly documented.

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