search_learning_labSearch public educational content on business continuity, disaster recovery, DORA, cloud resilience, and incident management. Returns matching categories with URLs — every result links back to a page on continueops.com.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results. | |
| query | Yes | Free-text search query. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that results include categories with URLs and that every result links to continueops.com. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict output structure, though it doesn't mention pagination or result ordering.
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 two sentences, the first states the purpose and scope, the second explains the return format and URL behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or padding, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.
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 simple read-only search tool with fully documented parameters and safe-read annotations, the description is complete. It specifies the content domain, the output type (categories with URLs), and the destination domain. No output schema is expected, and the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs to know to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names and descriptions ('Max results' for limit, 'Free-text search query' for query). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate. It does not elaborate on query formatting or limit semantics beyond schema defaults.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource ('public educational content') with enumerated topics (business continuity, disaster recovery, DORA, cloud resilience, incident management). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browse_runbook_templates by focusing on content search rather than templates or assessments.
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 for when to use the tool: when searching for educational content in the Learning Lab. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the scoped topic list and mention of 'public educational content' implicitly guide usage. The return behavior (categories with URLs leading to continueops.com) also sets expectations.
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 targets a distinct domain: runbook templates, DORA readiness, compliance frameworks, BCP structure, ContinueOps info, learning content, and feedback. The descriptions are detailed and make the boundaries clear, so an agent is unlikely to confuse them.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (browse_, explore_, generate_, get_, search_, submit_), but 'dora_readiness_assessment' deviates by being a noun phrase. This is a minor inconsistency, though the overall pattern is still readable and predictable.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its public informational purpose. Each tool earns its place, covering browsing, assessment, lookup, generation, discovery, and feedback without unnecessary bloat.
The server covers a broad range of resilience and compliance operations, from exploring frameworks and generating BCP structures to searching learning content and submitting feedback. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool to retrieve a specific runbook template or a full DORA assessment), but agents can work around these via the provided URLs and forms.