Search Tailwind classes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it searches the project's real class list (project-scoped, not generic docs) and returns utility names plus their accepted modifiers. It omits any mention of pagination despite offset/limit parameters, which is a minor gap.

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 short sentences, no redundancy: purpose first, then usage trigger, then return shape. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states the return contents (utility names and their modifiers), which the agent needs. The remaining gap is pagination/limit semantics, but those are adequately covered by the parameter schema.

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%, and every parameter (query, prefix, project, limit, offset) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (search) plus a precisely scoped resource: 'the project's real Tailwind class list,' which signals it queries the actual project rather than a static catalog. It is distinguishable from siblings like tailwind_validate or tailwind_theme by the search/naming intent, though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast against.

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?

'Use when you know the intent but not the exact utility name' gives a clear, actionable trigger condition. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so an agent must infer that tailwind_validate or tailwind_canonicalize handle the cases where a name is already known.

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