search_docsSearch the MemorySync documentation and return matching pages with their headings and a link to the full Markdown text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum pages to return (1-20). | |
| query | Yes | What to search for, in natural language or keywords. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows it is read-only and not open world. The description adds that it returns headings and a link to the full Markdown text, providing useful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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, direct sentence that is front-loaded. It states the action and expected output with no unnecessary words, earning its place.
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 presence of an output schema and clear annotations, the description is sufficient. It covers the main behavior and output without needing to explain return values or safety, as those are already structured.
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%, so both parameters are well-documented. The tool description does not add extra parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so it relies on the schema for parameter semantics.
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 states the action (search) and resource (MemorySync documentation), and specifies the return value (matching pages with headings and a link to the full Markdown text). This distinguishes it from sibling tools list_doc_sections and read_doc.
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 clearly implies its usage for searching documentation, providing clear context but not explicitly stating when to use it over alternatives like list_doc_sections or read_doc. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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 clearly distinct purpose: listing sections, reading a full page, and searching. There is no overlap in what they accomplish.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_, read_, search_). Minor singular/plural variation is acceptable and readable.
Three tools is perfectly scoped for a documentation server, covering the essential operations without bloat.
For a read-only documentation server, the surface is complete: orient, search, and read full content. No obvious missing operations.