search_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly labels the operation as [READ], describes case-insensitive substring matching, and explains the envelope's truncation field, warning that truncated results are incomplete. It stops short of specifying edge cases like empty matches but overall is transparent.

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 compact but well-structured: purpose, args, return envelope, and a caveat about truncation. Each sentence adds value, and the most critical information (purpose and truncation warning) is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fully explains return values via the envelope example, including truncation semantics. It covers parameter meaning, default behavior for target, and usage context. This is a complete, self-contained description for a search tool.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does: 'query' is described as a case-insensitive substring over keys and values, and 'target' is explained as a proxy target name with 'omit for the default'. This adds meaning far beyond the raw schema types.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the config tree for a string; returns matching config paths'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_config_value (which fetches a specific value) by emphasizing it returns paths usable by get/set_config_value.

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: it's for locating config paths, applicable to Caddy, and the results are directly usable by get/set_config_value. It also advises narrowing the query when truncated. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name direct alternative tools.

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