Szukaj w dokumentacji

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningfully: it discloses the retrieval mechanism (lexical + semantic fusion), the corpus types covered, and the exact return form (best-matching fragments with source, plus per-segment timestamps for videos). It omits secondary operational details like permission/auth needs, rate limits, or that it is strictly read-only, so it falls short of 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the search mechanism and corpus and then the return payload. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values itself, and it does so well (fragments + source + video timestamps). The only gap is the absent when-to-use guidance relative to sibling retrieval tools, which slightly reduces completeness for a 5-parameter multi-source 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters (query, tags, product, doc_type, top_k) including examples and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as how tags, product, and doc_type filters combine, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific mechanism (hybrid BM25 + semantic) and resource (instruction base covering manuals, videos, PDFs, DOCX, images), so the agent knows exactly what this does. However, it never names or contrasts with siblings like find_similar or get_document, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by describing the return shape ('direct the user to the segment'). There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to find_similar (semantic-only) or get_document (full-document retrieval), which are the obvious alternatives an agent would weigh.

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