search_warp_drive_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly establishes a read-only search behavior with no side effects, and covers scope and expected use. It does not detail the exact result format (snippets vs. full sections), but the schema's maxResults description partially addresses this limitation.

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 opens with a concise summary, then uses a well-structured bullet list of use cases, and closes with a practical directive. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers purpose, specific use cases, and the timing rule, making it fully usable without additional context from sibling tools.

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%, with both query and maxResults having detailed descriptions and examples. The description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a documentation search for WarpDrive and EmberData, listing specific packages and APIs. It is distinct from the sibling get_* tools by emphasizing targeted search over fetching a specific guide or package.

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?

It explicitly enumerates when to use the tool (API lookups, migration paths, package usage, framework integration) and adds a strong directive to always use it before writing code. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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