search-docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Lists available documentation topics' and does not mention side effects, error behavior, output format, or prerequisites. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and provides a clear alternative, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has no output schema, yet the description does not clarify what the return value looks like beyond 'topics.' It also does not mention when to use this tool over other siblings like get-library-docs or find-examples, leaving gaps in context for a tool with moderate 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?

The schema description coverage is 67% (cwd and version have descriptions, library lacks one). The description itself adds no parameter semantics, leaving the library parameter's purpose to be inferred from its enum. It does not explain how cwd/version interact with the tool.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb+resource: 'Lists available documentation topics for a library.' It also distinguishes itself from semantic-search-docs by recommending that tool for AI-powered content search, aiding differentiation.

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 explicitly recommends using semantic-search-docs for AI-powered content search, which clarifies when not to use this tool. However, it does not address other sibling tools like get-library-docs or resolve-library, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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