search_workspaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states what data is searched and implies a read-only operation via 'search'. It does not disclose return format or side effects, but for a search tool the behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 exactly two sentences, each earning its place. It is front-loaded with the action verb and provides detail without fluff.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and search targets. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the return format or pagination behavior, leaving a gap in understanding what results to expect. Overall, it's good for a simple search tool but not fully 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?

The schema already documents the only parameter with 100% coverage, including case-insensitive substring match. The description adds context about search targets but does not change parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 opens with 'Search across all workspace metadata, notes, and tab history', using a specific verb and resource. It enumerates exact search targets (workspace names, tags, workspace.md content, saved tab titles/URLs), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_workspaces or get_workspace.

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 for finding content across all workspaces, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. However, the scope ('all workspace metadata') and search action make it clear when to use this tool versus listing or retrieving specific workspaces.

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