get_search_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only adds that the search engine is either ripgrep or fzf, but it does not explicitly say whether the tool returns the active engine, performs no side effects, or what the response contains. The output schema exists but is not referenced to clarify behavior.

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 extremely short and contains no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a zero-parameter introspection tool, though it reads more like a fragment than a complete explanatory 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?

The tool is simple, has zero parameters, and has an output schema, so the definition does not need to enumerate return values. However, it lacks explicit usage context and behavioral clarity, and the overlapping get_capabilities sibling leaves room for misinterpretation.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 names the resource ('moteur de recherche') and the candidate values ('ripgrep / fzf'), which clearly points at the tool's subject and differentiates it from generic siblings like get_capabilities. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit 'returns/reports' statement, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as get_capabilities or search_text. The description never states a condition like 'use this to check the active search backend'; an agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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