Searches the laptop troubleshooting knowledge base and returns best-matching article sections with IDs to find repair guidance from a natural-language query.
Search the laptop troubleshooting knowledge base. Returns the best-matching sections with article IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| k | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns best-matching sections with article IDs, but it does not clarify whether the search is read-only, how results are ranked, whether there are result limits, or what type of matching is used.
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 two tight sentences with no unnecessary wording. The core purpose is front-loaded and easy to scan.
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 and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail. Still, the missing parameter semantics and usage guidance leave meaningful gaps for correctly invoking the 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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the required query parameter or what the k parameter controls, leaving the meaning of k entirely undocumented.
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 uses a specific verb (Search) and resource (laptop troubleshooting knowledge base), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is also clearly distinguishable from the sibling ticket and warranty 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 the tool is for finding laptop troubleshooting information, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.