search-components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the search fields (name, description, tags) but omits details like case sensitivity, partial matching, pagination, or read-only nature. This is insufficient for a search tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, though it could include brief behavioral notes.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on return format, pagination, or matching behavior. It covers the essential 'what' but not the 'how' of results.

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 covers the single parameter with a description ('search term'), and the description adds value by specifying the fields searched (name, description, tags). This extra context helps the agent understand what the query matches against.

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 clearly states the action (search) and the resource (components) with the scope (by name, description, or tags). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list-components (which lists all) and get-component (single component 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 implies usage context: use this tool when searching components by specific terms. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives, the sibling tool names (list-components, get-component) naturally differentiate the use cases.

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