search_context

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions searching 'visible sections,' but fails to state read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. The operation's safety is unclear.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary text. It front-loads the core verb and scope. A small deduction for being in Chinese, which may hinder non-Chinese agents, but the content is efficient.

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 two parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema not provided, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'visible sections' means, how results are sorted, or the role of 'viewer_tier'. The tool's behavior is underspecified.

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 hints at 'query' via 'keyword search' but gives no details on format or constraints. The 'viewer_tier' parameter with default 'private' is completely ignored, leaving its meaning ambiguous.

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 action is keyword search across all visible sections, returning hit sections and context snippets. It distinguishes from siblings like list_context and get_context which list or retrieve specific contexts.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_context or get_context. The context of 'search' is implied but not contrasted with other listing/retrieval tools.

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