whim_rag_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the core behavior—keyword overlap, word-boundary ranking, and chunk returns—so an agent knows it is a read-style retrieval operation. However, it omits details like pagination, result fields, or any limits, leaving some ambiguity about behavior.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that names the action, target, and return behavior without unnecessary words. Every phrase contributes meaningful information.

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 (2 params, no nested objects), so the description covers the essential behavior: searching indexed documents and returning ranked chunks. Without an output schema, a bit more detail about the exact return structure or default behavior would improve completeness, but the current description is sufficient for a basic retrieval 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (query and topK). The description adds contextual meaning by explaining that matching is keyword-overlap based and ranked, but it does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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's function: search indexed documents by keyword overlap and return relevant chunks ranked by match score. It identifies the resource ('indexed documents') and the mechanism ('word-boundary match score'), making it distinct from sibling tools like fact or context retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name that 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as whim_snippet_search or whim_facts_get. The description implies a keyword-overlap search use case, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios.

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