search_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful matching behavior: CamelCase splitting and fuzzy matching. However, it says nothing about result shape, ordering, pagination, loader default behavior, or whether the search covers all loaders by default. The description is not misleading, but it is thin on behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the verb, scope, and supported matching modes efficiently, and every clause earns its place.

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?

Core invocation details are present: the query is required, optional filters exist, and the matching behavior is described. However, there is no output schema and no annotation coverage, and the description does not mention what the search results look like or how to choose between search_docs and the many search-like siblings. This leaves an agent with enough to call the tool correctly but not enough to fully predict the response or confidently route around alternatives.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining that query supports class names, method names, keywords, CamelCase splitting, and fuzzy matching, enriching the query parameter beyond the schema's brief description. It does not add detail for limit, loader, or category, but those are already clearly documented in the 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 states a specific verb and resource: full-text search across all Minecraft 1.21.1 + Forge/NeoForge documentation. It also lists supported search targets (class names, method names, keywords), so it is clearly not a tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from search_api or search_events, but the documentation-wide scope is reasonably distinctive.

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 implies this is a general documentation search tool, but it never explicitly says when to use it instead of search_api, search_events, get_document_section, or browse_api_category. There are no exclusions or alternative-selection conditions, which is a notable gap given the large sibling list.

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