search_tools

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

With no annotations, the description transparently states that it returns lightweight tool metadata by default and mentions the includeSchema parameter for full schemas. It does not discuss side effects or rate limits, but as a read-only search tool, the behavior is adequately conveyed.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and capabilities, and the second provides usage guidance and default behavior. No word is wasted.

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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers key aspects: searching by category/query/complexity, default lightweight results, and the option for full schemas. It does not detail the response structure, but for a discovery 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?

The input schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions. The description adds context by explaining the default lightweight response and the includeSchema toggle, going beyond the schema. This compensates for the lack of parameter semantics in the description itself.

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 as searching and discovering tools by category, keyword, or capability. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_codebase' by focusing on tool metadata, and the verb 'search' is specific to finding the right tool.

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 advises using this tool to find tools without loading all schemas, providing clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use cases.

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