search_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses meaningful details: the SQLite FTS5 backend, exact-word/prefix matching, and the return structure including snippets, location, and suggested read_document calls. It still omits permission requirements, result ordering/ranking, and empty-result behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then adds backend, matching semantics, usage priority, and return behavior in tight, non-redundant sentences. Every sentence contributes useful information without bloat.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains what results look like: matching documents, snippets, locations, and suggested read_document calls. It is nearly complete for a three-parameter search tool, though it could mention result ordering or behavior when no documents match.

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 documents query, limit, and file_type fully. The description's matching-semantics sentence largely repeats what the query parameter schema already says, adding little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search the user's own files') plus the index scope ('local folders indexed by RootMind'). The exact-word/prefix matching detail implicitly differentiates it from search_fuzzy, and it names read_document in the return behavior, but it does not explicitly name the closest sibling alternative.

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?

Gives explicit priority guidance with 'USE THIS FIRST: it is fast and cheap,' which tells the agent when to prefer it. However, it does not state when not to use it or name search_fuzzy as the alternative for typo/fuzzy matching, so the guidance is clear but incomplete.

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