vcv_library_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the search is scoped to the local library and returns 'exact' slugs intended for vcv_create. However, it does not disclose behavior with empty query/tags, limit semantics, error conditions, or explicitly confirm it is read-only, though 'search' strongly implies non-destructive.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The second sentence adds the output purpose without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope (local library), search dimensions (text/tags), and the output contract (exact slugs for vcv_create). Given an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The only notable gap is limit behavior, but the schema's default provides a hint.

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 low (properties have titles only, no descriptions), so the description must compensate. It maps 'free text' to query and 'tags' to tags, covering two of three parameters. The limit parameter remains unexplained — no indication of max results or behavior when omitted.

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'), a resource ('modules installed in the local Rack library'), and the search criteria ('free text and/or tags'). The mention that it returns slugs 'to use in vcv_create' ties it to its sibling and clarifies its role in the workflow. This clearly distinguishes it from the read/write/create/validate siblings.

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 implies a workflow — search first, then vcv_create with the returned slugs — but never explicitly says 'use this when you need slugs' or contrasts it with vcv_read/write/validate. The when-to-use is inferable from the vcv_create mention, yet the description gives no exclusions or explicit alternatives.

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