docs_search

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

The description says the docs are bundled and searchable without internet/login, while annotations declare openWorldHint=true, which implies external open-world interaction. This is a direct contradiction with the stated local/offline behavior, so the rubric requires a score of 1.

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 definition is two sentences, front-loaded with the core search capability and followed by the key empty-query behavior. There is no wasted text.

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 read-only search tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the important offline context and empty-query behavior. It could mention result format or the docs_read handoff, but those are minor gaps.

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 0% description coverage for the single query parameter, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful meaning by explaining that an empty query lists document slugs, but it does not define matching behavior or search syntax.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: search the bundled TTCraft manual and Lua API. It also states the empty-query behavior, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling docs_read tool.

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 empty-query behavior implies a slug-discovery workflow, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus docs_read or other sibling tools. Usage is inferable but not fully stated.

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