lilbrain_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search scope and does not explain result format, matching behavior, whether it is read-only, pagination, or query syntax. 'Search' implies a read operation, but important behavioral details are missing.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and scope, and the content type list is efficiently packed into a colon-separated enumeration.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and full schema coverage, which lowers the required descriptive burden. Still, there is no output schema and no explanation of what a search result looks like, nor guidance on choosing between this and specialized siblings. It is adequate for basic invocation but has clear gaps.

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 only describes the query parameter as 'Search query', which is minimal. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the query can target functions, classes, sections, and constants, giving the agent a better sense of what the query parameter should contain. Some query syntax or matching details are still absent, but the added context is valuable.

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 identifies a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('everything') and enumerates specific content types: functions, classes, sections, constants. This makes the tool's broad scope clear and distinguishes it from specialized siblings like lilbrain_function and lilbrain_file, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 phrase 'Search everything' implies this is a general-purpose lookup tool for when the exact location or type is unknown. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention that specialized sibling tools may be better when the target type is already known.

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