doc_search_paths

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation, without indicating read-only status, input requirements, return format, or side effects. The 'PRO+ plan' hint suggests a permission constraint but is not elaborated, leaving significant gaps.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action, but the second sentence about the plan is a tangential note. The brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it concise yet under-specified; it is not a tautology but lacks substance.

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 many sibling search tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain glob syntax, what 'doc paths' includes, or the response structure. Combined with undefined parameters, the tool is not fully documented for reliable invocation in varied contexts.

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?

The input schema has zero documented properties yet permits additional properties, implying the tool accepts parameters. However, neither the schema nor the description specifies what parameters to provide (e.g., the glob pattern key). The description's mention of 'glob' hints at a pattern parameter but does not name it, so the agent must guess.

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 ('search') and resource ('doc paths'), with a clear 'glob' modifier indicating pattern matching. This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like doc_search_text or doc_search_symbols, which focus on content or symbols rather than paths.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for path-based glob searches but provides no exclusions or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and description.

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