Search AdonisJS docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the tool returns a 'compact ranked list of doc ids,' which tells the agent results are not full page content and that a follow-up call to get_doc is needed. It does not mention rate limits, auth, or failure behavior, but those are minor for a read-only docs 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 compact: two sentences deliver the search scope, the return format, and the routing to get_doc. It is front-loaded and free of filler. It loses a point because the parenthetical library list is incomplete and slightly restates the title's 'AdonisJS docs' concept.

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 the schema's thorough parameter descriptions and the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return shape and how to proceed. It also gives enough context for chaining with get_doc. It could have mentioned version auto-detection behavior or the full library enum, but the schema already handles those details.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all five parameters, including enums for library and version, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond a partial library list, and omits vine/japa. It does not compensate for or improve on the schema's parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Keyword search over AdonisJS documentation.' It also distinguishes itself from get_doc by explaining that the output is a ranked list of doc ids meant to be passed to get_doc. Though the parenthetical omits vine/japa libraries, the overall purpose is unmistakable and the schema fills that gap.

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 clearly frames when to use this tool: when you need to find relevant documentation pages via keyword search. It also tells the agent what to do next: 'pass an id to get_doc to read the page.' It does not explicitly discuss the detect_version sibling or state when not to use search_docs, so it is not a full when/when-not guide.

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