search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Returns ranked results with signatures,' which adds behavioral context, but does not disclose performance, error handling, or what happens with empty results. It is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, then lists what is found, and uses a clear bullet-like format for parameters. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool complexity (5 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers input parameters, their defaults, and the nature of the output (ranked results with signatures). No further information seems necessary for correct invocation.

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%, but the description provides detailed explanations for each parameter beyond the schema. For example, 'file_path: Optional path prefix or exact file to scope results (e.g. 'src/services/' or 'src/services/foo.ts')' adds valuable context. All five parameters are clearly described.

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 tool's function: 'Search the indexed API by keyword.' It lists specific resources found (classes, methods, properties, fields, events) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_class and get_signature, which focus on specific lookups.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool (keyword search) and details optional filters (n_results, member_type, file_path, include_tests). It implicitly differentiates from siblings by focusing on search vs. direct retrieval, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives.

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