Paginate or literally search document passages, returning page, paragraph, or line numbers plus source and extraction hashes for traceable, non-RAG evidence.
分页或字面搜索文档片段，返回页码、段落或行号；检查原件和提取结果哈希，不是 RAG。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| study_id | Yes | ||
| document_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: it returns page numbers/paragraphs/line numbers and checks original-vs-extracted hashes. It does not describe pagination limits or result shape beyond the return fields.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the pagination/search verb leads and the RAG disclaimer comes last. The semicolon-separated hash clause is dense but earns its place by flagging an integrity behavior.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully states the return content (page/paragraph/line numbers), and annotations cover safety. But for a 5-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage it leaves parameter roles and pagination semantics underspecified, so an agent lacks what it needs to call it precisely.
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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only loosely implies pagination (offset/limit) and search (query) roles, and does nothing to explain study_id/document_id or the query's literal-matching, maxLength, or limit bounds.
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?
States a specific verb+resource with scope modifiers: paginate OR literal-search document chunks, and disambiguates from RAG semantics. It does not name the most relevant siblings (research_read_source, research_capture_document_chunk), so sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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?
Usage is implied by 'literal search' versus 'pagination', which tells an agent the two modes, and '不是 RAG' (not RAG) sets a boundary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or names of alternatives among the many siblings, so selection among them is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.