Search Capacitor documentation

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about the return format (best matching page sections with fields) and that results are attached as structured content, providing a bit more transparency beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 relatively long but packed with essential usage guidance, including when to use and when not to use the tool. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides exclusions and alternatives. It is not wasteful; every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 covers the tool's purpose, scope, and exclusions thoroughly. Since an output schema exists (as noted in context signals), the description does not need to detail return values beyond mentioning the types of fields. It provides enough context for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of all four parameters with descriptions, including enums for section and version, and a description for query noting that plain keywords work best. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline score 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 clearly states it searches official Capacitor documentation by keyword and returns matching page sections. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming get_doc_page, list_plugins, and list_blog_posts as alternatives, making the tool's unique purpose 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?

It explicitly instructs to use this tool first for any Capacitor-related question and lists specific topics (CLI, config, native projects, plugin APIs, upgrading). It also provides clear 'do not use' guidance, directing users to get_doc_page for whole pages and to other MCP servers for Capawesome and Ionic Framework content.

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