Search a local literature library using Chinese or English keywords to retrieve original source evidence, with optional filters for version and character budget.
本地中英文关键词检索，限定可选版本和字符预算；仅召回当前原文证据，摘要和笔记不作为原始证据。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| char_budget | No | ||
| version_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only current original text evidence is returned and that summaries/notes are excluded, which is useful result-scope context, but it does not describe pagination, ranking, or truncation behavior for char_budget.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the search type and evidence scope. It contains no filler, though the semicolon-joined clauses could be separated for readability.
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?
Considering five parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and evidence constraints but leaves usage context, required parameter roles (beyond schema), and result handling unspecified. An agent can invoke it, but with notable uncertainty around project scoping and result limits.
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 must compensate, but it only explains that version_ids and char_budget are optional limits; it does not cover project_id, query, or limit. Query is indirectly suggested by '关键词检索', but required project scoping and result paging are left unclarified.
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 states a specific operation: a local Chinese/English keyword search over a project's current original text evidence, with optional version and character-budget constraints. It does not explicitly name or compare against sibling tools such as search_literature or index_semantic_search, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The phrase '本地' implies local use and the evidence scope hints at a distinction from summary-based retrieval, but an agent must infer when to choose this tool over search_literature or index_semantic_search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.