search_plex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the search function without mentioning performance aspects (e.g., response time, rate limits), authentication requirements (though 'authenticate_plex' is a sibling), or result format (e.g., pagination, sorting). For a complex search tool with 38 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is searched (movies, TV shows, other content) and where (Plex libraries), making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 high complexity (38 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits like authentication needs, result limitations, or error handling, which are critical for a search tool in a media server context. The description alone is inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 schema fully documents all 38 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a general search capability. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with any high-level context about parameter groupings or usage patterns.

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 for movies, TV shows, and other content in Plex libraries, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'browse_library' or 'discover_music', which might offer alternative ways to find content.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'browse_library' (for browsing without search) and 'discover_music' (for music-specific discovery), the agent receives no explicit or implied direction on selection criteria, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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