whodb_platform_file_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one behavioral contribution is the non-destructive per-call override ('without changing defaults'), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about result limits, ranking, or search scope, which is thin for an open-world search.

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?

Two tight sentences, and the per-call targeting constraint is stated plainly. No filler, though the second sentence largely restates what the workspace schema already declares.

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 read-only search tool with a full schema and annotations, the essentials are present, but with ~130 siblings including several file tools the description should say what distinguishes a search hit from a file listing and what a result contains. That routing gap leaves the agent to guess.

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 100%, so query, fields, and the nested workspace object are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about the query string syntax or the meaning of 'top-level output fields'. Baseline 3 applies.

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 files) and scopes it to 'the selected hosted project'. It does not differentiate itself from the nearby file siblings (whodb_platform_files, whodb_platform_file_inspect, whodb_platform_file_preview), so an agent can't tell from the description alone why it would search rather than list.

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 workspace parameter description does explain the fallback chain ('omit to use the session default set by whodb_platform_session_use, then process/saved defaults') and points at discovery tools. But the top-level description never states when to use search versus listing files, and gives no query syntax or scope guidance.

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