rag_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 'поиск' (search) which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether it performs semantic/vector search, how results are ranked, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient phrase in Russian that directly states the tool's function. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a RAG search tool (which typically involves semantic retrieval and possibly generation), no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that might overlap (like web_fetch), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'личный корпус документов' (personal document corpus) entails, how documents are indexed, or what the search returns, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 parameters (query and limit) adequately. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what type of queries work best, what the limit applies to, or format expectations). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Поиск по личному корпусу документов' (Search through personal document corpus) states the general purpose (searching documents) but is vague about the specific mechanism (RAG-based search). It distinguishes from obvious non-search siblings like file_write or task_create, but doesn't clearly differentiate from potential search alternatives like web_fetch.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for semantic search over personal documents) or when other tools might be better (e.g., file_read for direct file access, web_fetch for web content).

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