search_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions combining search with AI-synthesized answers and the available search modes, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. The description lacks transparency about side effects and operational constraints, which is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise, using ~50 words plus the Args list. It front-loads the purpose and feature, then gives usage guidance, then lists parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 has only 3 parameters and an output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. The description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., does it return raw results or synthesized answers?), pagination, or limitations. Given the simplicity, it is fairly complete but could be slightly more thorough.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args block adds necessary meaning: it explains 'query' as the search query or question, 'folder_path' as the folder path (with default '/'), and 'search_mode' with its allowed values and default. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions, though more detail on folder_path format would improve it.

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 searches within a specific folder using semantic or keyword matching, and mentions AI-synthesized answers. It specifies the verb (search) and resource (folder), and provides a use case ('Good for asking questions about documents in a specific folder'). This distinguishes it from broader search tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_documents' or 'document_intelligence_search_folder'.

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 gives an implied use case ('Good for asking questions about documents in a specific folder') but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternative tools. With many sibling search tools, more explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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