search_astrbot_config_paths

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns only matched key paths (no big values) and describes return format, which is helpful. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (purpose, modes, returns). Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The front-loaded purpose statement is followed by necessary details in bullet format.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides some context but has significant gaps. While it explains the tool's purpose and return format (and an output schema exists), it doesn't adequately cover parameter semantics or behavioral aspects needed for a search tool with multiple configuration options.

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 for all 6 undocumented parameters. While it explains the purpose of key_query and value_query in the 'Modes' section, it doesn't address the semantics of conf_id, system_config, case_sensitive, or max_results parameters. This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 AstrBot config and returns matched key paths without big values, specifying the verb 'search' and resource 'AstrBot config'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'inspect_astrbot_config' by focusing on searching rather than inspecting, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'list_astrbot_config_files'.

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 implied usage through 'Modes' section, explaining when to use key-only vs. key+value queries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inspect_astrbot_config' or 'list_astrbot_config_files', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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