search_docsKeyword search across this framework's documentation set (README, AGENTS, ARCHITECTURE, PRODUCT, DECISIONS and everything under docs/). Returns the file path, the nearest heading and an excerpt for each hit. Read-only; it serves documentation, never customer records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Words that must all appear on the same line. Case-insensitive. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context by describing keyword matching rather than semantic search and by clarifying the returned shape (file path, heading, excerpt). No contradictions exists between the description and annotations.
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, front-loaded with scope and return format, and does not waste words. The read-only note lightly overlaps with annotations but adds the important scope boundary that customer records are not returned. No padding or repetition.
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, the description covers the input (keyword query), the source corpus, and the output fields. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit return format in the description. It could add edge behavior such as empty results, but overall is sufficiently complete.
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 describes query's matching behavior and limit's type, default, min, and max. The description adds context that the query searches documentation content, but does not mention the limit parameter or its behavior. The schema covers half of the parameters well, but the description adds only mild value for parameter meaning.
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 names a specific action ('Keyword search') and a precise resource ('this framework's documentation set') while enumerating the included document types. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_job and get_capability by targeting documentation lookup only.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: any time users need to search framework documentation. It also implies an exclusion by stating it never serves customer records, signaling this is not the tool for data access. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use scenarios beyond that.
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 tools have distinct purposes: check_job evaluates a job status, get_capability resolves capability details, and search_docs performs documentation search. While check_job and get_capability both relate to capabilities/limitations, their descriptions are clear enough to avoid confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_job, get_capability, search_docs. Each uses a clear action verb and a specific object, which is predictable and readable.
Three tools is a lean but reasonable set for a knowledge-focused server. Each tool covers a distinct query mode (status, detail, full-text), so the count feels justified rather than sparse.
The tools cover the core operations for the apparent domain (querying framework capabilities and documentation). Minor gaps exist, such as listing all jobs or capabilities, but agents can likely achieve their goals with the provided tools.