aura_search_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the 'Free only' filter, the default slim/excerpt response shape with no blobs, and the per-surface fallback semantics with the instruction to read isFallback/no_match per surface rather than globally. That last point is unusually valuable operational context. It stops short of describing auth needs, rate limits, or result ordering.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then scope constraint, then response-shape nuance, then the fallback caveat. The em-dash clause is information-dense, though the jargon ('honestly empty') is slightly informal for a spec.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both behavior and parameters. It handles the return-behavior nuances well (fallback, slim rows) but leaves all six non-slim parameters undefined and offers no explicit sibling routing. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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% across 7 parameters, and the description explains almost none of them. It gestures at 'slim rows by default,' which partially maps to the slim flag, but limit, query, theme, negative_theme, min_views, and exact_match are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description. This is a significant gap for a 7-param tool.

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 action (one parallel search call) over four named resource types (components, skills, assets, design systems). It clearly distinguishes itself from the four sibling per-surface search tools by being the fan-out aggregate. An agent can tell what this does and when it would supersede the singleton searches.

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 phrase 'One call across... in parallel' implies the fan-out use case, and 'Free only' establishes a scope constraint, which is real guidance. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over aura_search_components/skills/assets/design_systems, or whether the narrower tools are cheaper/more precise. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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