rag_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the return shape (relevant code chunks with citations), which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, index freshness, or whether results are read-only safe beyond the obvious search semantics.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the purpose and the return shape are both front-loaded.

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 simple three-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose and return type (chunks with citations), and the schema covers all inputs. Missing only minor context such as index scope/staleness or guidance versus rag_chat, which is not decisive for calling it correctly.

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 all three parameters (mode enum, query, top_k) are already fully documented in the schema, including defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Open5e developer documentation RAG index), which clearly separates it from siblings like rag_health, rag_stats, and rag_sources. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from rag_chat or the generic search tool, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (query the docs index to get code chunks), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given siblings such as rag_chat (likely conversational) and search (likely non-RAG), the agent must infer which to pick with no stated rule.

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