search_help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses valuable context: the documentation is version-exact from the running install, every help archive is searchable, and there are 47 archives on a full 22.0 install. It does not explicitly describe read-only safety or the full return shape, but for a documentation search tool the disclosed source, matching semantics, and scoping behavior are strong.

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 definition is front-loaded with purpose and usage, then moves into a clear Args block. The long scope list is justified because the schema provides no enum, and every listed corpus name has practical selection value.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only indirectly indicates that results include paths suitable for get_help_page. Otherwise, purpose, usage, and all three parameters are covered richly enough for correct invocation.

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, and it does. query is explained as search words that must all match a page; scope is explained as an optional corpus with many useful names and the default behavior of searching all; limit is identified as max results.

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 definition states a specific verb and resource: search Houdini's own installed documentation across concepts, workflows, VEX, expressions, HOM, and effects manuals. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_help_page by explaining that search finds result paths and get_help_page is the follow-up. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly says to use this BEFORE improvising and gives concrete triggers: unsure how a workflow is done, what a VEX/expression function does, or what a Solaris/TOPs concept means. It also names the follow-up alternative, get_help_page, and the condition for using it (a result path).

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