fgui_search_component

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what it does (search) and the return (list of matches), but does not explicitly say it is read-only, whether it requires an open document, or if there are any side effects or performance implications. For a search operation, more behavioral context would be expected.

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 compact and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. It contains no fluff and is easy to scan. It could be slightly more informative but remains efficient.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, an output schema, and a simple search operation, the description covers the basic meaning of the parameter and the return value. However, it lacks usage context (when to prefer this over list tools) and behavioral transparency (read-only, prerequisites). Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 schema provides only the parameter name and type with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by stating that name_pattern is a 'component name pattern' and notably 'supports partial matching', which is valuable and not present in the schema. This compensates well for the missing schema description.

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 components') and scope ('in all packages'), with a specific resource. It implies a distinguishing behavior from list-type siblings (search with pattern vs. list), but does not explicitly contrast itself with fgui_list_items or fgui_list_packages. Still, the operation is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like fgui_list_items or fgui_get_package_info. No context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an active document or project) or conditions that favor search over listing.

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