search_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses two search mechanisms, the return format (chunks with file paths), and a prerequisite. It does not mention rate limits or authorization but covers the essential behavioral aspects for a 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 two focused sentences: first describes core functionality with tier differentiation, second mentions return type and prerequisite. No extraneous information, every word serves a purpose.

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?

The description covers the tier-based search methods, return format, and prerequisite. It does not elaborate on the differences between semantic and BM25 search beyond tier association, but overall it provides sufficient context for the tool's use.

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 schema descriptions are detailed. The description adds examples for 'query' and context for 'project' and 'category', but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 indexed documentation using two methods (semantic similarity and BM25 keyword search), and mentions it returns relevant chunks with file paths. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'index_docs' and 'search'.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Index docs first with index_docs') and differentiates search methods by tier. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternative search tools among siblings.

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