search_lkml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (dictionary with matching threads and evidence sources) but does not elaborate on limiting behavior, ordering, or potential errors. Basic behavior is covered, but deeper context is missing.

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 a clear summary, args list, and return description. Every line adds value and the format is front-loaded with the main 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, all parameters, and return value. Given the presence of sibling tools, additional context about specific use cases or limitations would enhance completeness, but it is generally adequate for a 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%, and the description compensates by listing all four parameters with brief, meaningful explanations in the Args section. The descriptions are sufficient for basic usage, though not deeply detailed.

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 Linux Kernel Mailing List threads by subject or excerpt, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_kernel_code and search_commits.

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 usage for searching LKML threads but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. With multiple sibling search tools, more explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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