search_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states this is a read-only search operation over indexed docs, which is transparent about its non-destructive nature. However, it doesn't disclose search semantics (exact vs fuzzy, ranking, what happens with no matches) or mention indexing requirements.

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, tight sentence that names the resource type and scope. No wasted words. It's slightly terse but effective for a search tool. Could benefit from a brief note on repository scoping, but overall well-structured.

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 4 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain what result format to expect, how repository scoping works, or how docKind interacts with the query. The two unnamed params (limit, repository) are undocumented in both schema and description, creating a gap.

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 coverage is 50% — query and docKind have descriptions, but limit and repository have none. The description doesn't add parameter context beyond 'query' being the search text. With moderate coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate, though repository (a scoping param) is left unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Search indexed documentation' with specific doc types listed (guides, cookbook, migrations, CHANGELOGs). Distinguishes from search_source (code search) and find_examples/find_tests, though doesn't explicitly name them. The purpose is clearly stated and distinct from sibling tools.

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 this is for searching docs rather than source code, which implicitly differentiates from search_source. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over find_examples, find_best_practice, or the analyze_* doc tools. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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