docshelf_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe read. The description adds valuable context: search is space-split, case-insensitive, results include path, snippet, and optional raw URL. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences, first gives purpose, second explains matching and results. Efficient and front-loaded with no unnecessary text.

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?

Describes search behavior and result contents reasonably well. However, the shelf_path parameter is omitted from the description, and its role is not clarified. Output schema existence is noted, reducing need for return value details.

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 covers the query matching logic but does not mention the shelf_path parameter, which is undefined in schema description and not explained in tool description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so description should compensate but fails to explain all parameters.

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 performs plain-text search across all Markdown files in the shelf. Sibling tools are all different operations (add, convert, init, list, rebuild), making the purpose distinct.

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 implicitly indicates use for searching text in documents. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives. Given no other search tool, the guidance is sufficient but could be clearer.

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