Search your documents by name. Returns matches with their URLs and latest versions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query matched against doc names. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| docs | Yes | ||
| query | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is safe and non-mutating. The description adds useful behavioral context about the return payload (URLs and latest versions) beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations.
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 short sentences, with the core action stated first and no filler. Every clause adds information—search scope and return contents. This is an appropriately concise definition.
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 single-parameter read-only search tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior and result contents. It doesn't detail match semantics (e.g., substring vs exact, case sensitivity), but those are not critical for a correct call. The tool is simple enough that this description is complete for an agent.
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?
The schema already fully documents the only parameter 'q' with 'Search query matched against doc names.' The description reinforces this with 'Search your documents by name' but doesn't add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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 verb ('Search') and resource ('your documents') and narrows the search to 'by name.' It also mentions the return content (URLs and latest versions), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools create_doc and get_doc.
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 clear context: use this tool when searching for documents by name. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names (create_doc, get_doc) make the use case obvious. It lacks the explicit when-not-to-use guidance needed for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: create, fetch, and search. There is no meaningful overlap between them, since get_doc retrieves exact content while search_docs returns matching document metadata.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_doc, get_doc, search_docs. The plural in search_docs is idiomatic and does not create confusion.
Three tools is a focused, appropriate count for this server's scope. Each tool covers a distinct and essential operation without redundancy or bloat.
The core workflow of creating, fetching, and searching is covered, and versioning handles updates. However, there is no delete operation and no way to list all documents without knowing a name, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.