search_docs

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the search is fuzzy and scoped by project, but does not disclose whether it searches all documents or only open ones, how results are ordered, what the default project behavior is, or what the return format looks like.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It leads with the core purpose and immediately provides the optional scoping behavior. Every phrase 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks details about return values, whether 'documents' means open documents or persisted documents, how project scoping affects results, and how this search relates to sibling tools like list_open_docs or list_projects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does add meaning by clarifying that 'query' is a document name and 'project' is an optional scope, which is beyond the raw schema titles. However, it does not explain query syntax, case sensitivity, or what happens when project is null.

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: 'Fuzzy-search documents by name.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_open_docs and open_doc, and the optional project scope adds additional specificity.

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 use for finding documents by name, and 'Optional project scope' gives some guidance about scoping. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_open_docs or list_projects, nor does it mention any exclusions or important context.

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