search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without detailing side effects, authentication needs, or whether it is read-only. As a search tool, it is likely non-destructive, but this is not confirmed.

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 short (one sentence), which is concise, but it lacks structure and depth. It front-loads the action but omits necessary context, making it insufficiently informative. It could benefit from additional sentences without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values, but it fails to clarify scope, sorting, or behavior of the search. Sibling tools suggest a broader context, but the description remains isolated and vague.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about parameters. It does not explain the purpose of 'query' or 'limit', nor any constraints or formatting hints. The semantic burden is entirely on the schema.

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 verb 'Search' and resource 'indexed workspace metadata', indicating a search operation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_file' or 'health', which are different in nature. However, it could be more specific about what kind of metadata is being searched.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or explicit exclusions. Sibling tools are present but not referenced for comparison.

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