search_references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the content scope (canonical patterns, version guides, integration references) but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, what the response format is, or any potential limitations. The description adds some behavioral context but misses explicit safety/return disclosures expected without annotations.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action and resource. The 'USE THIS' section adds practical guidance without extraneous wording. Every sentence earns its place.

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 with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it searches, what kind of content, and example use cases. It could be more complete by mentioning the result format (e.g., list of reference snippets), but the named tool and examples make expectations reasonably clear.

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 fully documents the 'query' and 'maxResults' parameters. The description's example queries align with the schema's parameter examples but do not add new semantic details beyond what is already in the input schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's function: searching a 'code_failures knowledge base' for canonical working patterns, version guides, and integration references. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_past_bugs (which targets bugs) and file_reference (which files 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 includes 'USE THIS' with concrete example queries ('what's the correct CopilotKit + AG-UI setup?', 'which versions are compatible?'), providing clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, leaving the differentiation to inference.

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