search_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that results are ranked and include scores, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential limits, error handling, or authentication requirements. The disclosure is present but minimal.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the return type. No superfluous words or repetition.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return values more thoroughly. It only mentions 'ranked results with scores' without describing the result object structure or content. However, the tool is relatively simple and the schema covers parameter details, making it moderately 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how 'query' is matched or how filters interact.

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 the SkillsIndex directory'), the resource ('AI agent tools'), and the output ('ranked results with scores'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tool (which likely retrieves a single tool) and compare_tools (which likely compares tools).

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 clear context for when to use the tool (searching for tools) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Sibling tool names suggest other use cases, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance like 'use get_tool when you know the exact ID'.

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