search_docs

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is read-only with no side effects, returns ranked document chunks with source, relevance, and type, and includes a 'no results' message with a rephrasing suggestion. No hidden side effects or contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear sections and bullet points, front-loading the purpose and usage guidelines. While slightly lengthy, every sentence adds value and no redundancy is present. Minor points could be condensed, but overall effective.

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?

In the absence of annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and return value description. Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema present), it is fully complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning for all three parameters: query (natural language, be specific), top_k (default 5, increase for broad questions), and project (optional, defaults to active project). This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states it performs semantic search over the entire project knowledge base, is read-only with no side effects, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_bugfixes, search_by_type, and search_tests by specifying their different scopes.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool always before writing or changing code to retrieve architecture decisions, past bugs, best practices, and API contracts. Also provides clear when-to-use alternatives for sibling tools (e.g., search_bugfixes for debugging a specific error).

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