sigma_search_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, including 'AI-powered semantic search' and 'Returns relevant doc passages with source URLs.' It also redundantly repeats 'read_only_hint: True', but that does not contradict 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 moderately concise with three sentences, but it includes a redundant line 'read_only_hint: True' that duplicates the annotation. This adds noise without value, preventing a higher score for conciseness.

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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is quite complete. It specifies the tool's domain coverage and return type, and annotations cover safety. It does not mention limitations, but none are critical for a documentation search 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 schema has one parameter 'query' with no description, and the description provides 0% schema coverage. However, the description implicitly explains the parameter by saying 'Search Sigma Computing documentation' and 'Use this to answer questions about...' This implies the query is a natural language search string, but it does not explicitly define the parameter, so it only partially compensates.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search Sigma Computing documentation using AI-powered semantic search.' It also specifies the output: 'Returns relevant doc passages with source URLs.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sigma_get_doc_page, which likely fetches a specific page, and sigma_formula_pitfalls, which is narrower in scope.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to answer questions about Sigma features, configuration, formulas, administration, embedding, and best practices.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios.

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