search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions 'locally synced', implying a read-only offline search. It does not explicitly confirm safety, side effects, ordering, or result format. The agent is left to infer that search is non-mutating.

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 concise: a one-sentence summary plus a structured argument list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary words. All sentences serve a purpose.

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 simple search tool, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly, especially with an output schema present. However, it could benefit from noting how to discover available source IDs or check docs sync status (e.g., get_docs_status), but this is not critical.

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?

The Args block in the description explains each parameter (query, source_id, limit) beyond the schema's sparse titles. This is especially valuable given the schema description coverage is 0%. The explanations are clear, though source_id's 'all' could be slightly more explicit.

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 verb 'Search' and resource 'locally synced Ableton and Max documentation', making the tool's purpose obvious. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_docs_page or get_docs_chunk, but the search action is distinct enough from page/chunk retrieval.

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 on when to use search_docs versus alternatives like get_docs_status, get_docs_chunk, or get_docs_page. The description lacks any mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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