Search the Rootr workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, signaling a safe read-only operation. The description adds that it is a full-text search and returns documents, but does not disclose potential limitations such as pagination, indexing delays, or scope constraints. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides moderate added value.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It immediately communicates the core function and intended usage. Every word earns its place, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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 with one parameter, full schema coverage, and clear annotations, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, when to use it, and the basic nature of the search. No output schema is needed, and all necessary context is provided.

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 single parameter 'query' already has a description ('Search query text'). The description's mention of 'full-text search' implicitly suggests the query is free text, but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it performs a full-text search across the connected Rootr workspace, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as a discovery tool to find documents before reading or editing, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 clear context by saying 'Use this to find relevant documents before reading or editing them.' This implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like 'rootr_ask' for Q&A. The guidance is helpful but lacks exclusions.

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