Search Shelby Docs

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable operations. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it returns 'most relevant pages', hinting at ranking or relevance scoring, but doesn't detail aspects like search algorithm, pagination, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's moderate complexity (search operation with 2 parameters), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer usage.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'query' and 'limit' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as query formatting tips or result interpretation. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Shelby documentation bundle'), and indicates what it returns ('most relevant pages'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_shelby_docs' vs 'list_shelby_doc_pages' or 'read_shelby_doc', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_shelby_doc_pages' or 'read_shelby_doc'. It lacks context on scenarios where searching is preferred over listing or reading specific documents, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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