search_runbooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that only 'approved' Markdown runbooks are searched, which is a useful filter trait, but it says nothing about ranking, result limits, permissions, or how matches are returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word earns its place and the core action is stated immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is simple with one required parameter. However, with no annotations and no behavioral detail about scope enforcement or result handling, the definition is only minimally complete.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema adds no meaning. The phrase 'for a text query' clarifies that the parameter is free-form text rather than an ID or filter, which is marginally useful but largely inferable from the parameter name.

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 ('Search') and resource ('approved Markdown runbooks') plus the query modality. The sibling tools (host_health, k8s_pod_status, slow_probe) are unrelated diagnostics, so no differentiation is needed or expected. Clear and unambiguous.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. The word 'approved' hints at a scoping constraint, but nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice versus other lookup mechanisms. Usage is only implied.

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