zulip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only search operation (implied by 'Search' and 'Returns'), case-insensitive filtering, and that an empty query returns all custom emoji. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, pagination, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections that efficiently document behavior. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, parameter usage, and return behavior, leaving output details to the schema. No critical information is missing for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. The Args section explicitly explains the 'query' parameter's purpose ('Substring to filter emoji names'), behavior ('case-insensitive'), and special case ('Empty string returns all custom emoji'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, providing clear parameter semantics.

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 specific action ('Search custom emoji') and resource ('available on this Zulip server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_reaction or remove_reaction which modify reactions rather than list available emoji. The verb 'Search' accurately captures the filtering capability described in the Args section.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to search or list custom emoji on the server. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear given that sibling tools are mostly unrelated (e.g., send_message, get_messages). The Args section further clarifies usage with the query parameter.

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