search_project_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses automatic BM25 fallback to grep and scope behavior. However, it doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., file names, snippets) or mention any rate limits or auth requirements, which would enhance transparency.

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 bullet points for scope guidance, and the main purpose is front-loaded. While every sentence adds value, it could be slightly more streamlined. Overall, it's appropriately sized and clear.

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 4 parameters, the description thoroughly explains search behavior and scope usage. It does not describe the return format or what happens with no results, but for a search tool, it covers the essential aspects for correct invocation.

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 significant value beyond the schema: it explains the default scope derived from CWD, provides concrete examples of when to use each scope (including Korean), and clarifies the mode parameter's effect (skipping BM25 index).

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 documentation files for a keyword/phrase, specifying two search mechanisms (BM25 ranked and grep) and two scopes (project and global). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_vault' by targeting project docs specifically.

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 and actionable guidance on when to use global vs project scope, including specific user language examples (e.g., 'all projects', 'everywhere', Korean phrases). It also implies default behavior for project scope. Though it doesn't mention alternatives like 'search_vault', the sibling list makes the differentiation clear.

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