Find which agent worked on a feature or project by searching agent rosters, skills, MCP services, projects, and work records, with file names and line numbers.
跨栏全文检索：Agent 名册、技能、MCP 服务、主要项目，以及各 Agent 的工作记录（逐字翻，给文件名·行号·上下文）。查「某功能/某项目由谁在哪做过」用它。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 各类最多返回几条，默认 20 | |
| query | Yes | 关键词（中文/英文均可） | |
| scope | No | 检索范围，默认 all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are verbatim and include file names, line numbers, and context, which gives the agent a clear picture of output behavior. It does not discuss limits or side effects, but for a read-only search operation this is reasonably transparent.
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?
Two dense sentences with no filler. The scope of search and the distinctive work-record feature are front-loaded, and the use case is given immediately. The slight typo '跨栏' does not undermine clarity.
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?
Given a simple search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key agent-facing needs: what is searched, what the result includes, and when to use it. It does not spell out the exact response format, but it conveys enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline expectation.
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?
States a specific verb ('检索') and a clear resource: full-text search across agent rosters, skills, MCP services, projects, and work records. The use case '查某功能/某项目由谁在哪做过' further pins down what the tool is for and distinguishes it from the browsing-focused 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 gives a concrete when-to-use scenario: finding which agent did what and where. It implicitly contrasts with browsing-oriented siblings like inventory_overview or inventory_recent, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.