search_mui_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches by keyword or category but doesn't explain how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), what happens on no matches, or any performance constraints (e.g., rate limits). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence: 'Search for MUI components by keyword or category'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool's moderate complexity (search operation), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and result handling. For a search tool, it should ideally explain more about the search mechanism or output format to be fully complete.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It mentions searching 'by keyword or category', which aligns with the schema's 'query' parameter description ('Search query (e.g., 'input', 'button', 'layout', 'navigation')'). With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema already documents the parameter adequately, and the description doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search for MUI components by keyword or category'. It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('MUI components'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'generate_mui_component' (creation) and 'get_mui_component' (retrieval). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_all_components' (which might list without search) or 'mui_health' (status check), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'search_mui_components' over 'list_all_components' for filtered results, or when to use 'get_mui_component' for direct retrieval instead. Without any context on exclusions or alternatives, it offers minimal usage direction.

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