search_docs

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions auto-fetching missing docsets, which is a side effect, and the ranking method. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, the format of results, or potential performance implications beyond a vague '1 second' claim.

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 a brief two-sentence overview followed by a clear parameter breakdown. No unnecessary filler; each sentence contributes to 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?

For a search tool, the description covers the core functionality, parameters, and a side effect (auto-fetch). It does not explain return structure, but since an output schema is present, that is not required. The description is sufficiently complete for typical 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?

The description adds meaningful context to each parameter: query accepts keywords/signatures/questions, docset specifies target or 'all', and top_k indicates number of sections. Examples are provided, enhancing clarity 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?

Clearly states the tool's function: searching local documentation sets using header-aware BM25 lexical ranking. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_docsets and get_doc_page by focusing on search.

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?

Provides examples for query and docset but does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_doc_page or list_docsets. The intended use case is implied but not directly contrasted with siblings.

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