titan_search_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'search' naturally indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state this or disclose any other behavioral aspects (e.g., whether matching is case-sensitive, returns snippets, or has pagination). It provides minimal transparency beyond the obvious non-destructive search action.

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 a single, complete sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb ('search') and resource. There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and easy to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (one string parameter, no output schema), a short description is acceptable, but it omits details about what the search returns (e.g., a list of matching documents?) and whether it matches against full text content or just metadata. The absence of an output schema makes these details more pertinent, yet the description leaves them unspecified. It is minimally complete but lacks some expected context.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly describe the 'query' parameter. While one can infer that 'query' is the search text from context, the description itself never states this, leaving the agent to rely on the parameter name alone. This is insufficient compensation for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 specifies a concrete action ('full-text search') on a clear resource ('all SDK documentation'), and the name titan_search_docs reinforces this. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like titan_list_docs (which lists docs) and titan_get_doc (which retrieves a specific doc). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core purpose.

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 implies usage (when you need to find content within documentation) but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as titan_list_docs or titan_get_doc. There are no stated exclusions or conditions. The context of sibling tool names helps, but the description itself lacks direct comparison.

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