redm-search-framework-docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool's purpose without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it has rate limits, what the output format might be, or any authentication requirements. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single, clear sentence: 'Search RedM framework documentation (VORP and RSGCore)'. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and scope without any unnecessary details or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a search function with 2 parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are formatted, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'framework') with descriptions and an enum for 'framework'. The description doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or semantics, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Search RedM framework documentation (VORP and RSGCore)'. It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('RedM framework documentation'), and scope ('VORP and RSGCore'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'redm-search-natives' or 'redm-search-discoveries', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'redm-get-vorp-docs' or 'redm-get-rsgcore-docs', nor does it specify contexts or exclusions for its use. This lack of comparative or contextual information leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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