mc_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses result capping, default/max limits, and details what each hit returns (class hits: kind, extends, etc.; method hits: signature, line number; field hits: declaration). This is thorough behavioral context.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then return details, then filtering, then limits. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return values for all result types. All parameters are covered, and the description provides enough context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly. No gaps are apparent.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds value by specifying defaults ('defaults to all three') and behavior for non-finite limit values ('Non-positive or non-finite values fall back to default'), which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource: 'Search decompiled Minecraft or Fabric API source code for classes, methods, or fields by name pattern.' It distinguishes from siblings like mc_get_class and mc_get_method by implying this is for searching by pattern, not for fetching specific items.

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 explains that type filter defaults to all three and that limit can be widened, providing clear context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mc_find_refs or mc_find_hierarchy, though the context of searching by name pattern is implied.

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