Sorsa API

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description goes well beyond them: statelessness per call (cwd resets to `/`, no variables or history carry over), no writes/network/process control, a hard 30KB output truncation with advice to prefer targeted `rg -C`/`head -N`, and the sandbox's backing store. These are exactly the operational facts an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Long, but front-loaded and mostly earned: purpose and sandbox bounds come first, followed by workflow, statelessness, examples, OpenAPI mounts, and truncation limits. There is mild redundancy (the statelessness caveat about `cd` is stated twice) that keeps it from a 5, but no filler sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates fully: it explains result truncation at 30KB, how to narrow results, how to read the OpenAPI specs with `jq`, and how to convert filesystem paths back to URL paths for the final answer. An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and to act on the output.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine value beyond the schema by enumerating the supported command set (rg, grep, find, tree, ls, cat, head, tail, stat, wc, sort, uniq, cut, sed, awk, jq) and by showing multi-file and piped invocation patterns. It stops short of 5 only because much of the example syntax overlaps with the schema's own example.

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?

States a specific verb (run a query) against a specific resource (a virtualized, in-memory documentation filesystem) and immediately bounds its scope: it contains ONLY Sorsa Developer Platform docs and OpenAPI specs, and is explicitly 'NOT a shell on any real machine.' It also names the sibling it is not — there is no separate 'get page' tool, and broad queries go to the search tool — so an agent can distinguish it from search_sorsa_developer_platform without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use the search tool for broad/conceptual queries like 'how to authenticate', use this tool for exact keyword/regex matching, structural exploration, or reading a specific page by path. It further instructs discovery-first behavior ('never guess paths', use `tree / -L 2`) and pre-empts a common misinterpretation (a missing path means a wrong guess, not an undocumented topic).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape ('contextual content with titles and direct links') and the follow-up read pattern with a concrete example command. It stops short of describing result limits, ranking, or pagination 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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose and usage trigger before moving to return format and the sibling handoff. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical .mdx example adds length that could have been tightened.

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 two-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, result shape, and the exact follow-up path to retrieve full content. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and chain this tool correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents both `query` and `language` (including the 'en' default). The description adds no query syntax, language-code format, or filtering nuance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search across the Sorsa Developer Platform knowledge base') and enumerates what it surfaces (information, code examples, API references, guides). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from query_docs_filesystem_sorsa_developer_platform, which is described as the tool for full page content rather than search.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions ('when you need to answer questions about Sorsa Developer Platform, find specific documentation, understand how features work, or locate implementation details') and names the alternative for a different need ('If you need the full content of a specific page, use the query_docs_filesystem tool'). The handoff even includes the mechanical detail of appending .mdx to the returned path.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the write/effect profile is covered. The description adds useful outcome context ('so the docs team can fix it') but says nothing about confirmation, rate limits, or what happens to submitted feedback, so it only marginally extends the structured data.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, followed by trigger conditions and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter feedback tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, triggers, exclusions, and target audience completely. Annotations handle the mutation/effect profile, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are well documented in the schema itself (path format, feedback content). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Report a problem with this documentation site') and makes the target explicit ('feedback about the documentation content itself'). It is clearly distinguishable from the read-only sibling tools query_docs_filesystem and search_sorsa_developer_platform, which retrieve rather than submit.

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?

Explicitly enumerates the triggering conditions ('incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, or has a broken example') and adds clear exclusions ('not for product support requests or feedback about this tool or assistant'). This is a textbook when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.