Search Headron code and symbols with a local hybrid TF-IDF index to locate relevant definitions and matches.
Fast hybrid TF-IDF and symbol search across Headron using local index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | search query or symbol |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds two useful facts beyond them: retrieval is hybrid and runs against a local index (no network fan-out), but it says nothing about result ordering, result counts, or index staleness.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses; the core mechanism arrives first. "Fast" is mildly promotional but costs little.
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?
For a one-parameter, fully annotated, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool is and how it retrieves. Only guidance on result shape or when to reach for it over the mind_* siblings is missing, which is minor at this complexity.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself saying "search query or symbol," which the description echoes by noting symbol search is supported. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load; the explicit mention that symbols as well as natural-language terms are valid adds a small amount of meaning.
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 concrete verb and resource ("search across Headron") and even names the retrieval mechanism (hybrid TF-IDF plus symbol search over a local index), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It stops short of naming a sibling or scoping what 'Headron' contains, so it is clear but not explicitly differentiated from the routing/gate family.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'use this to find things in Headron,' but there is no statement of when to prefer it over port, route, gate, or mind_route, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Minimum-viable guidance without routing logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.