api_monitor_search_apis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral: whether the search is a read-only safe operation, how matching works (substring vs exact), whether the result set is paginated, or how install_root is discovered. It only implies read behavior via the word 'Search'.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the core resource stated up front. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for the amount of undocumented surface it leaves behind.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description should at minimum clarify query semantics and the meaning of install_root and limit. The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, but the input-side gaps remain unfilled.

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 three undocumented parameters (query, limit, install_root) and does not. It only loosely implies that 'query' matches API definitions; 'limit' and 'install_root' (including how to find a valid root) are left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('installed XML API definitions') scoped to Rohitab API Monitor, which is clear enough to act on. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as api_monitor_read_api_definition, api_monitor_parse_api_definition, or capture_list_apis, so an agent cannot tell exactly which of these to pick without opening schemas.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With several visually similar siblings (read_api_definition, parse_api_definition, list_apis), the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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