search_projectsSearch Djaouad's production projects (AI receptionist, RAG document workspace, tool-calling support agent) for proof of relevant experience.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | What to look for, e.g. 'RAG', 'payment', 'mobile app' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a non-mutating operation. The description adds the scope constraint that only production/shipped projects are searched, which is useful. No other behavioral traits like result formatting or empty-search behavior are disclosed.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, the resource, and the goal with no filler or redundant wording.
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 one documented parameter, the description covers the essential resource and intention. It does not describe return values or result behavior, but that is largely understood from the 'search' verb; no output schema also makes this less critical.
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 description coverage is 100% and already defines query semantics with 'What to look for'. This DI@ underscore, N. I am sorry. The description implicitly suggests valid queries via project names ('RAG', 'tool-calling'), which adds modest context but does not materially extend 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 a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('Djaouad's production projects') and purpose ('for proof of relevant experience'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the project resource is distinct from slots, pricing, profile, and brief.
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 phrase 'for proof of relevant experience' reveals the intended use case (validating experience against shipped projects), but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over a sibling like get_profile or get_next_slot.
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 step in the client journey (learn, validate, price, schedule, convert), but get_profile and get_next_slot both mention availability, which could cause an agent to pick the wrong tool.
All five tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_*, search_*, submit_*), with the verb clearly indicating the action type.
Five tools is well-scoped for a personal hire-me server—enough to cover the full journey without bloat.
The set covers the full lead-to-client lifecycle: introduce (get_profile), prove (search_projects), price (get_pricing), schedule (get_next_slot), and convert (submit_project_brief), leaving no dead ends.