Search HitKeep Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, side-effect-free operation. The description adds some value by mentioning 'the LLM catalog and cached markdown pages', which hints that results may come from a cached source rather than live documentation. However, it does not disclose return behavior or potential staleness in detail.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the action ('Search official HitKeep documentation') and then adds a brief qualifier. It is concise, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 search tool with two well-documented parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the search source (LLM catalog and cached markdown pages), which provides useful context. The main missing element is guidance on when to use this tool relative to documentation retrieval siblings, but that is already partially addressed in the usage dimension.

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 provides 100% coverage: both 'query' and 'limit' have clear descriptions, including default and cap for limit. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: searching official HitKeep documentation. It uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('official HitKeep documentation'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'hitkeep_get_doc' by indicating this is a search operation rather than a retrieval operation.

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 that this tool is used to search documentation, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like 'hitkeep_get_doc' or 'hitkeep_get_api_reference'. There is no mention of exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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