search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add meaningful behavioral context by revealing the hybrid FTS5 ranking and symbol awareness. However, it does not disclose what the result looks like, whether it is read-only, or any limits beyond the schema's default limit, leaving some behavior implicit.

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, dense sentence packs the core purpose and key capabilities with no filler. The most important action ('Search documentation chunks') comes first, followed by differentiating details.

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?

The description is adequate for a straightforward search tool, but the lack of an output schema and the presence of many closely related siblings mean more context could help an agent decide correctly. It does not mention result format, default behavior beyond the schema, or how it relates to the specialized find_* tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'version filtering' mirrors the version parameter and 'symbol awareness' aligns with the query parameter's existing 'code symbol' wording, but it adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('documentation chunks') and adds distinguishing technical features (hybrid FTS5 ranking, symbol awareness, version filtering). This makes the tool's role obvious and separates it from the more targeted find_* siblings without needing to open the schema.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings like find_api, find_example, or get_doc. It states capabilities but does not explain when a general chunk search is preferred over a specialized lookup or provide exclusions.

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