api_search_category

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as being read-only, potential side effects, or safety. For a search tool, transparency is limited; the agent cannot infer whether the operation is safe or has rate limits.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that immediately convey purpose and provide a concrete example. No extraneous words or superfluous details.

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 simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers core functionality. It explains the hierarchical category concept but could briefly mention that the 'limit' parameter controls maximum results (though the schema already includes a default).

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage. The description adds value by explaining the hierarchical nature of categories with an example, which supplements the schema's 'Category path or substring' 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 ('Browse/search') and the resource ('Windows APIs by category') with an illustrative example of hierarchical paths. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'api_lookup' which are not category-focused.

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 implies the tool is for category-based browsing or searching but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'api_lookup' or other search tools. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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