doc-bot

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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a search operation (implying read-only, non-destructive), recommends best practices for queries (technical terms over natural language), and advises iterative searching. However, it doesn't explicitly mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value: the first sets the scope, the second provides usage scenarios, the third clarifies search scope, the fourth offers query tips, and the fifth advises on iterative use. There's no wasted text, and it's structured for quick comprehension.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral aspects, and parameter guidance. However, it doesn't describe the return format or output structure, which is a gap since there's no output schema. For a search tool, this omission is notable but not critical, as the schema handles inputs well.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by emphasizing the importance of technical terms in the 'query' parameter and suggesting iterative use, but it doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema offers (e.g., default values or usage examples for 'docsetId' or 'type'). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 purpose as searching codebase documentation and API references, specifying the scope (project patterns, architecture decisions, API docs) and distinguishing it from siblings like 'read_specific_document' or 'explore_api' by emphasizing broad search functionality. It uses specific verbs ('search') and resources ('documentation', 'API references').

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'THROUGHOUT your work, not just at the start', with specific scenarios like encountering unfamiliar code patterns, before implementing features, when debugging, or needing examples. It also advises on search strategies (e.g., 'If your first search doesn't help, search again with different terms'), offering clear usage context without exclusions.

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