everything_search_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the search action and adds a vague 'optimized' qualifier, with no detail on scope, limitations, return format, or side effects. This leaves the agent with little understanding of the tool's behavior beyond the literal verb/resource.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: 'Search', the resource list, and the 'SpecStory' qualifier all contribute to understanding the tool's 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns or any operational constraints. It does neither, only stating the search categories. For a specialized search tool with 5 parameters, this is incomplete.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage beyond the general 'SpecStory workflows' hint, which does not clarify any specific parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('documentation, specifications, and requirement files'), and distinguishes it from the generic sibling 'everything_search' by adding the 'optimized for SpecStory workflows' qualifier. This gives a clear, non-tautological purpose.

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 phrase 'optimized for SpecStory workflows' provides clear context for when to use this tool, implying it is the docs-focused variant compared to siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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