search_chapters

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives only a high-level summary. It does not disclose search behavior, pagination, ordering, or limitations. The output schema exists, but the description still fails to explain operational details such as project scoping or result handling.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the action with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description is too sparse for a tool with no annotations. It lacks critical context about project scoping, query semantics, and the role of max_results, making it inadequate for a complete understanding of the tool's 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%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (project_id, query, max_results). It adds no meaning beyond the schema's property names and types.

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 chapter contents and returns matching chapters and lines, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling search tools like search_characters and search_notes by targeting chapter contents specifically.

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 must be inferred from the description—search when you need to find content within chapters. No explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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