search_shapes

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states 'by name', which is minimal. It does not explain search matching behavior (exact vs. partial), case sensitivity, pagination, error handling, or what happens when no shapes match, leaving significant gaps.

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, concise, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function, achieving an ideal level of conciseness.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description is underspecified. It does not mention return values, pagination, or search behavior nuances. For a simple two-parameter tool, the description still leaves important operational details unstated, making it minimally acceptable.

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?

Although the schema has 100% coverage, the parameter descriptions are generic ('Search query', 'File ID'). The tool description adds meaning by specifying that the query is used to search by name, clarifying the purpose of the query parameter beyond the schema alone.

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 a specific action ('Search') on a specific resource ('shapes') with a defined scope ('in a file') and criterion ('by name'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_shapes or get_page_shapes, which likely have broader or different behavior.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_shapes or get_page_shapes. It lacks explicit exclusions or context about which tool is best for different search scenarios, leaving the agent to infer.

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