search_in_project

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose a key behavior by explaining the dependency on the 'project' frontmatter field. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what return structure to expect, or how the search matching behaves.

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?

One compact sentence, no filler, and the key scoping behavior is front-loaded. Every word contributes to the tool's meaning.

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 simple search tool, the core mechanics are captured. But with multiple search-related siblings and no output schema, an agent would benefit from explicit alternative-selection guidance and a clearer statement of return behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies the 'project' parameter by tying it to the frontmatter field, but 'query' and 'limit' are left to name-based inference.

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 names a specific action ('Search'), a resource ('the wiki'), and a clear scope ('restricted to pages tagged with a specific project'). This distinguishes it from a general wiki search, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 intended use case is implied: use it when you need a search restricted to a specific project tag. However, there is no explicit comparison to search_wiki, search_all_projects, semantic_search, or other alternatives.

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