diana_api_search

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, the description discloses the important non-obvious behavior that the first call builds a reference index from DIANA, taking seconds with a live session and roughly half a minute otherwise. That cold-start warning is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to avoid a timeout. It stops short of describing the match/ranking or return shape.

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 sentences plus a short Args block, with the purpose front-loaded and the latency caveat immediately after. Every line carries information; nothing is redundant padding.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only search this covers purpose, query semantics, and first-call latency. However, with no output schema and no description of what a match looks like or how results are ordered, an agent still cannot anticipate the response, and the relationship to diana_api_doc remains unaddressed.

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 carries the burden and does so reasonably: query is defined as words or a partial command name with three concrete examples, and limit is identified as the maximum number of matches. It does not state the default of 15 or matching semantics, but the core meaning is supplied.

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 names a concrete verb and resource: searching the DianaIE script commands of the installed DIANA version by name and description. That is specific enough to distinguish it from most siblings, but it never mentions the closely related diana_api_doc, so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied by the query examples ('mesh size', 'addMaterial'), which show the intended lookup pattern. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over diana_api_doc, diana_keywords, or diana_manual_search, and no exclusions.

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