search_siteSearches all of khalidibnehasan.com (case studies, side projects, writing, profile pages) for a phrase and returns matching items with URLs and snippets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The word or phrase to search for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it states the search scope and the return value ('matching items with URLs and snippets'). The verb 'Searches' appropriately conveys a read-only operation and implies no destructive side effects.
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?
One focused sentence front-loads the action and resource, lists the searched categories, and states the output. There is no filler or redundant restatement.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description supplies the essential missing context: what is searched and what a successful call returns. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter. The description's 'phrase' aligns with the schema's 'word or phrase' but adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema states.
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 ('Searches') and names the exact resource ('all of khalidibnehasan.com') with the content categories searched. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that retrieve or list specific content types.
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 gives clear context: this is the tool for finding a phrase anywhere on the site, across case studies, side projects, writing, and profile pages. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the scope is unambiguous.
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 and action: profile, resume, availability, projects, writing, case study detail, post detail, site search, and persona Q&A. The only potentially overlapping pair (list_projects/get_case_study and list_writing/get_post) follows a clear list-then-get pattern, so an agent can easily distinguish them.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_*, list_*, ask_khalid, and search_site. All are lowercase with underscores and use clear, predictable verbs that match their purpose.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a personal portfolio server. Each tool covers a meaningful aspect of the site's content or interaction, and none feel redundant or superfluous.
The surface covers the full portfolio experience: profile, resume, availability/contact, project listings with deep dives, writing listings with content retrieval, and whole-site search. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.