Alcove

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

Without annotations, description carries the burden well by disclosing BM25 ranked search vs grep fallback algorithms and CWD-based project detection. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly confirm read-only nature or describe return value structure.

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?

Well-structured with clear paragraph breaks separating mechanism (BM25/grep) from usage guidelines. Front-loaded with core function. Slightly verbose due to multilingual examples and extensive bullet points, though this is justified by the value for non-English queries.

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?

Comprehensive coverage of the 3 parameters, with particular depth on the complex `scope` parameter. Addresses the lack of output schema by at least describing search ranking behavior. Could improve by noting if results include file paths, snippets, or scores.

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?

While schema has 100% coverage (baseline 3), description adds significant semantic value by explaining when to select each scope value (project vs global) with concrete use cases, contextualizing the `query` parameter's behavior (BM25 vs grep), and clarifying the default limit behavior.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches documentation files using keywords/phrases, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `get_doc_file` (specific file retrieval) by emphasizing indexed search capabilities across projects.

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?

Exceptional guidance with explicit when-to-use rules for both scope values, including specific trigger phrases ('all projects', 'find everywhere') and even Korean language cues ('전체', '모든 프로젝트'), directly addressing sibling alternatives and user intent scenarios.

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