search_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose case-insensitive regex semantics and the exact fields searched, which is real behavioral value. It omits result capping/limit behavior, whether all matching fields are OR'd, and error behavior for invalid regex.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the operation type and field list. Efficient, though the field enumeration makes it slightly list-heavy rather than structuring the regex/scope facts separately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a search tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description should at least explain project scoping and the limit's effect on results; those gaps leave the definition only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaningful semantics for 'pattern' (regex, case-insensitive) but says nothing about 'project' (scope, required) or 'limit' (max results, default 60), leaving two of three parameters unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (regex search) and resource (components), and enumerates the searchable fields, which clearly separates it from get_component and components_near. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, so not a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'use this to find components by pattern', but nothing states when to prefer get_component, components_near, or get_bom instead, nor any preconditions such as the project needing to exist.

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