search_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the query searches 'document titles and headings' (scope), supports an optional subsystem filter, and returns a dictionary with 'docs' and 'evidence_sources'. This provides meaningful behavioral context for a read-only search tool, though it does not mention edge cases like pagination or ordering.

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 well-structured with an opening line, Args list, and Returns line. It is concise and free of fluff, though the opening line slightly duplicates what the Args explain. Overall, it is efficient and scannable.

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 an output schema, the description covers the essential usage: purpose, parameter meanings, and return format. It could mention what 'evidence_sources' refers to, but the output schema likely details this. It is sufficiently complete for a straightforward documentation search tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: query searches titles/headings, subsystem is an optional filter with examples ('net', 'mm'), and limit is the max result count. It also defines the return structure, adding substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('kernel documentation files'), and clarifies the filtering by 'query or subsystem'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_kernel_code (code search) and get_doc_details (retrieve details). The purpose is immediately clear.

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 clearly implies the use case: finding documentation files by keywords or subsystem. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., search_kernel_code for code) or provide exclusions. It gives clear context but no direct comparison.

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