search_docs

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly indicates read-only semantic search on indexed docs, but does not explicitly mention auth, rate limits, or performance constraints. Still sufficiently transparent for a search operation.

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 one param hint, all front-loaded. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema and simple param set, description covers core behavior, usage guidance, and file type constraints. Minor gap in parameter explanation but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, but description only explains repo_path as 'optional absolute path to the target repository.' Query and top_k are not described; top_k could benefit from explanation of result count.

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 it searches documentation files by semantic similarity, specifies file types (*.md, *.rst, *.txt), and distinguishes from code search by naming sibling tool semantic_search_code.

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?

Explicitly states what it should be used for (README explanations, architecture docs, decision logs) and what it should NOT be used for (code), with direct reference to alternative.

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