Search the UAB Research Computing documentation for relevant content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The search term or phrase to look for in the UAB Research Computing documentation. | |
| max_results | No | Maximum number of search results to return (default: 5, max: 10). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only says 'search' without indicating whether it's a keyword or semantic search, how results are ordered, or what the output structure is. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or behavior.
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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Slightly more detail could be added without losing conciseness, but it is not overly verbose.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, and the moderate complexity of a search tool, the description is incomplete. It omits details about result format, sorting, scope of documentation, and any limitations on query types. More context is needed for an agent to use it effectively.
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 clear parameter descriptions. The description adds the default value for max_results (5) which is not in the schema, and clarifies the maximum and minimum constraints. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.
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 the specific verb 'search' and identifies the resource 'UAB Research Computing documentation', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_documentation_page or list_documentation_sections which retrieve specific pages or list sections.
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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. Usage is implied but not explicitly directed.
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 clear, distinct purpose: quick start, documentation page retrieval, support info, listing sections, and searching. No overlaps or ambiguity.
All tools use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_*, list_*, search_*), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
5 tools is appropriate for a documentation/support server. It covers the essential actions without being too sparse or overloaded.
The tool set covers the main reading operations (list, search, get) and includes specific items like quick start and support info. However, it lacks navigation to sub-sections or a way to get all pages, which is a minor gap.