Search documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, whether it searches file contents or metadata, or how the recursive/path parameters affect behavior. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and easy to parse. However, it is under-specified, making it feel more like a placeholder than a well-crafted summary. Still, it earns its place without waste.

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 search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what is returned (e.g., matching documents, snippets, page numbers), how the path and recursive parameters affect the search, or any limitations. The schema provides some context but the description does not compensate.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions, albeit minimal: Path, Term, Recurse). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but per the baseline rule, a high coverage warrants a score of 3.

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 a search action on documents with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list_documents, read_document) by indicating a content-search function, though it lacks explicit scope or differentiation detail.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_documents or read_document. The description implies usage for finding text, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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