moose_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (name + one-line summary, plus signature/parent where available) and result caps (default 15, max 30). While it doesn't explicitly state read-only, the 'Fuzzy-match' and 'Returns' language strongly implies a non-mutating search operation.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output format, limits, and usage guidance. No redundant or filler content, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the what, how, and when. It explains the output shape and limits, and with sibling tools like moose_lookup, the usage context is complete. No significant gaps remain.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides—the 'limit' default and max are already in the schema. The 'half-remembered' framing is more about purpose than parameter meaning.

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 a specific verb ('Fuzzy-match') and resource ('indexed Moose.lua'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools by framing the use case ('half-remembered class or method names'). This is a clear, non-tautological purpose.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this before lookup when you only half-remember a name.' This names the alternative (moose_lookup) and specifies the condition for using this tool over it, making the usage context unambiguous.

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