search_operators

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'rank operators by relevance' and 'browse a category,' implying sorting and listing behavior, but it leaves key behaviors unspecified: what happens if both query and category are supplied, how the limit parameter affects results, whether partial matches are supported, and what the response structure looks like. These ambiguities are not severe for a read-only search tool, but they are notable gaps, warranting a 3.

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 two compact paragraphs. The first sentence delivers the core purpose. The second paragraph gives actionable instructions, examples, and a complete category list. There is no redundant phrasing, and every sentence contributes to the agent's ability to use the tool correctly. It is well-structured and appropriately sized.

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 is a simple search with three parameters and no output schema. The description covers the input side well, but it does not describe the return value (e.g., what fields each operator entry includes) or clarify edge cases like empty results or behavior when both query and category are provided. Given that there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the agent can expect in response, which it does not. This leaves the agent with gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 does so for two of three parameters: it explains 'query' with examples and its role in relevance ranking, and it explains 'category' by listing all accepted values. However, it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter, leaving its purpose (likely pagination) implicit. Since most parameters are clarified with concrete details, this is strong compensation, though not complete, hence a 4.

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 opens with a clear statement: 'Search PostScript operators by keyword or browse a category.' It identifies a specific resource (PostScript operators) and two distinct modes of use. The examples ('rotate', 'fill path', 'cmyk') further clarify intent and distinguish it from sibling tools like search_pslib (which likely searches library fragments) and search_reference (which might search reference docs). This is a well-defined purpose.

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 explicitly says how to use the tool: pass a query for keyword search or pass a category to list operators. It even enumerates the valid categories. However, it does not contrast with sibling tools like lookup_operator (which likely retrieves a single operator by exact name) or explain when search_operators would be preferred over them. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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