search_documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what is returned (pages and snippets) but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, result limits, or search behavior (e.g., case sensitivity, partial matching). This is minimal 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 three short sentences in Chinese, front-loaded with the action, then result, then use case. Every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 no output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers the main purpose and basic behavior. However, it omits details like whether language affects search results, potential error cases, or any dependencies. Slightly above minimal but not fully comprehensive.

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 the description adds value by giving examples for 'keyword' ('installation', 'API', 'config') and clarifying 'repo_path' format ('owner/repo or full URL'). The description also explains the search scope (full-text). This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 the tool does full-text search in repository documentation, returning pages and snippets. It includes a use case 'quickly locate specific information'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool 'ask_repo_ai', which may also perform search-like functions.

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 provides a usage hint: 'suitable for quickly locating specific information in documentation.' But no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternatives like 'ask_repo_ai' or 'fetch_documentation_page'.

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