smart-search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns URLs rather than direct search results, and requires a secondary tool (WebFetch) to get actual content. This is valuable context about the tool's output format and workflow requirements that isn't obvious from the schema alone.

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 and front-loaded with essential information. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good workflow guidance but lacks parameter details. It explains what the tool does and how to use its output, but doesn't cover what the parameters mean or what the return format looks like beyond 'NPM search URL'.

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 provides no information about the 'query' or 'size' parameters beyond what the schema indicates (string and number types). The description doesn't explain what the query should contain, what 'size' controls, or any parameter constraints or examples.

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 tool searches for NPM packages and related documentation ('搜索NPM包和相关文档'), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ai_search_github or ai_search_web, which likely search different platforms.

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 explicit usage guidance: it states the tool returns NPM search URLs and instructs Claude Code to use WebFetch to access the actual results. This clearly indicates when to use this tool (for NPM searches) and what to do with its output, distinguishing it from direct web search tools.

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