pfc_query_python_api

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a search tool that returns API paths with signatures, mentions it works 'like grep' (implying pattern matching), and clarifies it's for documentation search rather than execution. However, it doesn't mention 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second specifies output, the third distinguishes from a sibling, and the subsequent sections provide clear usage guidelines and related tools. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, sibling differentiation, and parameter context adequately without needing to explain return values (handled by output schema).

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing context for the 'query' parameter with specific examples ('ball velocity', 'create', 'contact force') that illustrate use cases beyond the schema's generic examples. It doesn't add details for 'limit' beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Search PFC Python SDK documentation by keywords (like grep). Returns matching API paths with signatures.' It uses specific verbs ('search', 'returns') and distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with pfc_browse_python_api for full documentation.

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 guidance with a 'When to use' section listing specific scenarios (e.g., 'You have keywords but don't know exact API path') and examples. It also names related tools and clarifies when to use alternatives like pfc_browse_python_api for known paths.

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