grimoire_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It fully discloses that the tool performs a read-only search across local knowledge bases, that results are ranked, and what the return fields are (source, category, path, snippet). It lacks details like exact result size limits or pagination behavior, but these are minor omissions for a search tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the action and scope, the second provides usage guidance and return details. Every word serves a purpose.

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 search tool with 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It references sibling tools for category lookup and gives concrete examples. No gaps remain for correct invocation.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already defines each parameter. The description adds value by providing usage examples (e.g., 'kerberoast') and linking category to a sibling tool, as well as describing the return format which gives context to the parameters. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 uses specific verb-resource pairing ('Full-text search across every indexed offline security knowledge base') and lists concrete sources (HackTricks, PayloadsAllTheThings, etc.), making the tool's scope crystal clear. It distinguishes from siblings like grimoire_categories and grimoire_fetch_doc by describing its search function.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to ground answers and checklists in real documentation,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or reference alternative siblings like grimoire_context for broader searches, so exclusions are missing.

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