Discourse Search

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

The description discloses the return structure (results array and meta fields), giving useful insight into output shape. However, it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination semantics beyond the presence of 'has_more', leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 highly concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately describe the return format. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it easily 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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, and the return format is described, which covers basic usage. However, it omits contextual details such as whether a site must be selected first (given the sibling discourse_select_site), how to handle pagination beyond 'has_more', and any error conditions, leaving some gaps for full contextual understanding.

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 description does not elaborate on the parameters, leaving max_results without explanation. The schema only describes 'query', providing 50% coverage, and the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already states, failing to clarify how max_results behaves.

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 'Search site content' and specifies the return format with 'matching topics' and metadata, indicating a search operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like discourse_filter_topics or discourse_get_query, so it lacks a bit of sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., site selection) or scenarios where a different sibling tool would be more appropriate, such as filtering topics or running queries.

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