search_docs

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds valuable context: fully local execution, no network calls, returns [] when no docs indexed, and describes the return structure (excerpt, source document, relevance score). This goes well beyond the annotation hints and clarifies operational behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY'. Four sentences cover purpose, local behavior, usage boundaries, and parameters/return value without redundancy. 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?

Given the tool's simple read-only nature, the description fully covers what it does, when to use it, its behavioral constraints (local-only, empty result), parameters, and output shape. An output schema exists, so the return format summary is supplementary but not missing.

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% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds a little context (e.g., 'natural-language text', 'default 8') but largely paraphrases the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 the tool searches the local documentation index, with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('local documentation index'). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting it's for version-specific library/vendor behavior and not for user/project data, directing to search_memory, search_evidence, or ask_memory.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use it for version-specific library or vendor behaviour' and clearly excludes user/project queries, naming alternative tools. This is strong when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance that goes beyond mere inference.

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