Search bundled source and guides

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: 'Returns compact file matches without loading bodies' and 'Source files and guide code blocks have different verification status,' which help set expectations for the response and result interpretation.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core purpose, return style, and an important result nuance without repetition or filler. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 3-parameter search tool with safety annotations, the description covers the main action and return behavior, but the 'different verification status' comment is vague and there is no mention of result structure or limit behavior. An agent can invoke it, but may be uncertain about interpreting results.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It hints at the source/guide distinction through 'Swift source' and 'guide code blocks' but does not explain the 'kind' enum, 'limit', or 'query' semantics. The agent is left without concrete guidance on parameter values beyond the raw schema types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search complete repository guides, Swift source, templates and assets offline.' This clearly conveys the tool's scope and differentiates it from online searches by noting it operates offline. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as search_apple_technologies, read_local_reference, or get_reference_outline. The description implies a local search use case but never states exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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