pfc_query_python_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return type (matching API paths with signatures) but does not disclose any other behavioral traits like pagination, case-insensitivity (though in schema), or side effects. For a read-only search, it is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return info and usage guidelines. Every sentence is useful and well-structured.

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 presence of an output schema (return values not needed in description), two well-documented parameters, and clear related tools, the description is complete for a simple search tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds overall context and examples but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema descriptions, which already provide examples and constraints.

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 PFC Python SDK documentation by keywords, returning matching API paths with signatures. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pfc_browse_python_api (for known paths) and pfc_query_command (for commands), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly provides 'When to use' guidance: when you have keywords but don't know the exact API path, with examples. It also lists related tools with their purposes, giving clear direction on tool selection.

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