Search the documentation for relevant pages. Returns matching documents with URLs, snippets, and relevance scores. Use this to find information across all documentation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (1-20, default: 16) | |
| query | Yes | The search query string |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It states the return format (URLs, snippets, relevance scores) but omits details like ordering, pagination, or query interpretation. Adequate for a simple search tool but not comprehensive.
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 with no superfluous content. It front-loads the action and result immediately, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description compensates by listing return fields (URLs, snippets, relevance). It covers the core purpose and output. However, it misses contextual details like sorted results or relationship to the sibling tool, leaving minor gaps.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (query and limit). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool searches documentation and returns documents with URLs, snippets, and relevance scores. It is specific (verb 'search', resource 'documentation') but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'docs_fetch'.
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 includes a usage hint ('use this to find information across all documentation'), implying when to use it. However, it provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., docs_fetch), leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: searching documentation and fetching the full content of a specific page. No overlap exists.
Both tools follow a consistent `docs_verb` pattern (`docs_fetch`, `docs_search`), making it easy to infer their functionality.
Two tools is a minimal but reasonable set for a documentation server. Could theoretically include a tool to list top-level sections, but the current count suits the core search-and-retrieve workflow.
The toolset covers the essential operations: finding relevant pages and retrieving their full content. Minor gaps like listing all available pages or getting page metadata exist, but they are not critical.
