search_keyword

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

Describes supported FTS5 syntax, return format (files with snippet and file_id, ordered by relevance). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it is sufficiently transparent for a read-only search tool.

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?

Concise and well-structured: one sentence for purpose, one for usage guidance, one for syntax, and one for return format. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, supported syntax, and return format. It distinguishes from siblings and is complete for effective use.

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 description adds context that keyword supports FTS5 syntax. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or provide details on parameter semantics beyond the overall purpose.

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 it is for exact keyword/phrase search over extracted file text, specifies the use of FTS5 and BM25 ranking, and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search' which is for semantic 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?

Explicitly states when to use (looking for specific term, function name, literal phrase) and when not to (meaning-based questions, recommending 'search' instead). Provides clear context for selection.

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