godot_search_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool searches, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what happens when cache is refreshed, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the search results look like. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes essential information: the action (search), scope (exact local Godot docs), version context (installed engine), and content types covered. No redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 7-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are ranked/formatted, error handling, or behavioral constraints. The description only covers the 'what' not the 'how' or 'what to expect,' leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand tool behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description mentions searching 'class, method, property, signal, and constant docs' which aligns with the member_type parameter values, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the specific action ('Search') and resource ('exact local Godot docs for the installed engine version'), with explicit scope including 'class, method, property, signal, and constant docs.' It distinguishes from all 22 sibling tools which involve project/scene operations, node manipulation, or execution tasks rather than documentation 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?

The description implies usage context (searching Godot documentation) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing Godot installed or compare with other documentation sources. Usage is implied by the tool's name and description scope rather than explicitly stated.

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