search_pslib

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

The description discloses what the tool returns ('names with one-line signatures') and that full source is not included, providing some transparency. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects, errors, or that it is read-only. Since there are no annotations to supplement, the description carries the full burden and falls short of fully disclosing behavioral traits.

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 exceptionally concise, using only three sentences to state purpose, usage, and output format. It front-loads the primary action and avoids any redundant information, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 presence of sibling tools like get_pslib_fragment and search_operators, the description adequately positions itself as a search tool and points to the next step for full source. It does not cover edge cases (e.g., what happens if both query and category are provided), but for a straightforward search tool, the provided context is sufficient.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'query' with examples and 'category' with a list of values, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all, leaving a gap. Thus, it partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions but not completely.

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 explicitly states the tool's function ('Search or browse PSlib procedures') and provides concrete examples of queries and categories, making its purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself by mentioning that it returns names with signatures, implying it is not for full source retrieval.

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 gives direct usage instructions ('Pass a query or a category') with illustrative examples for both parameters. It also guides the user to 'call get_pslib_fragment to retrieve full source,' indicating a follow-up step. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like search_operators, though the context implies it.

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