search_browser

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral details: search is by display name (case-insensitive substring), returns URIs for loading, and lists category options. It does not describe behavior for max_results or empty results, but overall adds value beyond annotations.

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?

Four concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Every sentence adds necessary information: search method, output, category filtering, usage recommendation.

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 complexity (search with substring, return URIs) and presence of an output schema, the description covers core behavior and category options. It lacks explanation of max_results and handling of no results, which are minor gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so description carries the burden. It explains query as display name substring and category with explicit options. However, max_results is not mentioned, leaving its purpose implicit. This is a minor gap.

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 it searches the Ableton browser by display name (case-insensitive substring) and returns loadable items with URIs. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_browser_items_at_path' by explicitly preferring this when you know a name.

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?

Explicitly says 'Prefer this over walking get_browser_items_at_path when you know a name.' This provides clear context for when to use vs. an alternative. However, no other exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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