ms_search_local_help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it searches local help, but does not mention what results look like, whether the help must be installed, read-only behavior, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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 tool is simple and an output schema exists, which reduces the need to explain return values. However, the lack of annotations and usage guidance, combined with the large sibling list, leaves gaps in operational context. It is minimally viable but not 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. The verb 'search' implicitly clarifies that 'query' is the search term, but 'max_results' is entirely unexplained. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 specifies the action ('Search') and the resource ('the installed Materials Studio 2023 scripting help'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ms_read_local_help_page, but the combination of search verb and narrow resource scope strongly implies a distinct query-based action.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it offer any context on prerequisites or exclusions. The presence of many sibling search/help tools makes this gap more significant.

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