search_standards

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 communicates that the tool performs a scan (implying read-only, but not explicitly), but does not describe result limits, case sensitivity, partial matching behavior, or performance characteristics. A 3 is appropriate as it adds moderate value but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently conveys purpose and scope without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and 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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects, no enums), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what is searched, how (by keyword), and where (config/ and examples/). The only minor gap is lack of detail on search behavior (e.g., exact match vs fuzzy), but for a simple search tool this is acceptable.

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 100% (the single parameter 'query' has a description: 'Keyword or phrase to search'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('Magento standards, rules, patterns, and example blueprints'), and clarifies scope ('scans config/ and examples/'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_team_standards or get_pattern_reference, which likely fetch specific items rather than performing a keyword search.

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 states 'Search... by keyword' and specifies the search domains ('config/ and examples/'), giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, which would improve the score to a 5.

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