search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It describes the search behavior and return format but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or permissions needed. It implies a read operation but does not state it explicitly. Lacks some transparency.

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 concise with two introductory sentences followed by a short Args list. Every sentence adds value—no fluff, no repetition of schema. The use of examples in parameters enhances clarity without excessive verbosity.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the search scope, parameter usage, and result content adequately. However, it could explicitly state that it is read-only or mention pagination limits to be fully complete. Still, it is mostly sufficient for a search tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'query' with concrete examples ('RAG pipeline', 'Agent memory', 'image node') and 'source' with its allowed values ('framework', 'nodes', 'all'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 performs full-text search across Griptape documentation, listing the specific data sources (framework and nodes docs) and what it returns (title, URL, snippet). This differentiates it from siblings like 'get_page' or 'get_code_examples' by specifying the scope.

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 does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the source parameter filtering but does not guide the agent on when to choose this over sibling tools like 'search_griptape_nodes' or 'list_categories'. No explicit 'when not to use' or alternative references.

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