search_guideSearches the AIOTIC Integrator Guide for relevant sections and returns page, heading, URL, and snippet to answer AIOTIC integration questions.
Full-text search over the guide (sections). Returns page, heading, URL and a snippet. Use before answering any AIOTIC integration question.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return fields (page, heading, URL, snippet), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, authentication, rate limits, ranking, or whether results are empty when nothing matches.
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?
Three tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose plus the usage trigger are both front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.
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 small 2-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, trigger, and return shape. It is let down by zero explanation of the parameters at 0% schema coverage, which leaves the agent guessing about query and limit semantics.
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 0% and there are 2 parameters (query, limit). The description mentions 'full-text search' but never explains query syntax, the min/max length constraint, or what limit defaults to and caps at. It does not compensate for the schema's documentation gap.
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 ('Full-text search over the guide (sections)') and even names the return shape (page, heading, URL, snippet). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_pages or get_page, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the page-retrieval tools.
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?
'Use before answering any AIOTIC integration question' gives a strong, actionable trigger condition, which is unusually good for a search tool. However, it offers no exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to use get_page instead once a section is known), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.