search_workUse this when an agent needs to search Zachary Roth’s public selected work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Case-insensitive public search query |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the search targets public content, but discloses no further behavioral details such as result ordering, limits, or search semantics. This is adequate but not rich.
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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and appropriate use. There is no filler, and the key information is 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 one-parameter search tool with read-only annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, the close sibling `search_writing` is not addressed, so the context for choosing between the two search tools is incomplete.
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%, with the `query` parameter already described as a case-insensitive public search query. The tool description adds little beyond the resource context, so the schema carries the semantic weight and the baseline score applies.
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 identifies the action ('search') and the target resource ('Zachary Roth’s public selected work'), so an agent can understand the basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool `search_writing`, which may refer to overlapping content and introduces selection ambiguity.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when an agent needs to search Zachary Roth’s public selected work.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, which would strengthen guidance, but the stated use case is clear enough for most invocation decisions.
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 resource/action except search_work and search_writing, which could be confused since 'work' and 'writing' both imply portfolio content; descriptions clarify one is selected projects and the other publications, but the boundary is not immediately obvious. The get_project/get_publication and list/search operations are otherwise clearly separated.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_ for single items, search_/list_ for discovery. No mixed conventions or vague verbs like 'process' or 'do'. The names accurately reflect their operations.
Seven tools is well within the ideal range and each tool covers a distinct aspect of a personal portfolio (contact, experience, projects, publications, writing). Nothing feels redundant or excessive for the site's purpose.
The read-only personal-site domain is well covered: contact, experience, projects, and publications are all accessible. Minor gap: projects lack a dedicated list_all equivalent, relying on search_work for discovery, but this is workable for the scope.