search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the return JSON structure (count, results with title, url, snippet, score) and explains the bm25 scoring semantics. It also discloses special status fields for index initialization/refresh failures and background refresh. This is transparent.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when to use, when not to use, return format, special conditions). It is concise and front-loaded, with each section adding value without redundancy.

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 covers the main usage scenario, return format, and special status conditions. It does not detail the limit parameter's behavior, but that is in the schema. Given the output schema exists, this is mostly complete, though slightly more parameter context would help.

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 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It implies query is a keyword but does not explicitly describe it or the limit parameter. This is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it searches the offline full-text index of CS2 Workshop Tools official docs by keyword. It also distinguishes from get_page by noting when to use get_page instead, giving a specific verb, resource, and context.

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 provides 'when to use' and 'when not to use' sections, stating to use this tool for locating terms/concepts in CS2 docs, and to use get_page when the exact page title is known. It also excludes unrelated queries. This is explicit guidance.

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