semantic_search_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the tool performs 'search' and 'RAG', implying read-only operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or mention other behaviors like rate limits or authentication. The description adds some context but lacks explicit safety disclosure.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that immediately convey the tool's advanced nature and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and no unnecessary words are used. It is well front-loaded.

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?

The tool has five parameters and no output schema. The description mentions 'detailed match reasons' and 'relevance scoring', partially addressing return value. However, it does not fully describe the output structure (e.g., whether results include snippets, scores, etc.). Given the absence of an output schema, slightly more detail would enhance completeness.

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 all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining the semantics of 'min_relevance' or the enum values). Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs 'advanced semantic search using RAG over UTCP documentation' and lists specific features (relevance scoring, query expansion, match reasons). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search_utcp_docs' by calling it 'basic', making the purpose and differentiation explicit.

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 description advises to use this tool for 'more sophisticated searches than the basic search_utcp_docs tool', providing direct guidance on when to use it instead of a sibling. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for simple keyword lookups), the contrast implies the alternative.

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