search_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic purpose but omits what the search returns (e.g., list of matching components?), result count limits, partial match behavior, or performance considerations. The agent is left guessing about side effects or reliability.

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 a single, no-fluff sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is optimally concise for the core function.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient for complete understanding. It does not explain the output format, whether results are sorted, or how it differs from sibling tools (e.g., list_components). For a search tool, this leaves critical 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?

The input schema already provides a description for the 'query' parameter (matches name, selector, or id). The tool description adds little beyond restating 'name or selector'. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3; the description adds marginal value.

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 components by name or selector, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_components' or 'get_component_props', missing an opportunity to clarify when to use search vs. list. A score of 4 reflects clear purpose but lack of sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_components for full listing, get_component_props for specific component details). Without context on when to search vs. list, the agent lacks decision support.

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