ik_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states exactly what the tool searches and the return fields (scope/file/line). It does not cover query syntax or result limiting, but the disclosed behavior is clear and non-misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, covering scope, action, and return format efficiently.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and behavior. It states the return format and searched sources, but omits how 'max_results' behaves, query syntax, and any edge cases. This makes it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 for parameter meaning. The 'query' parameter is inferable, but 'max_results' is entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description adds no concrete parameter semantics beyond the search context.

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 uses a specific verb+resource structure: 'Full-text search across the language reference, stdlib docs, tutorial, toolchain docs, std/ sources, and examples.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that target individual references or modules by covering all documentation sources, and it reports the return format (matching lines with scope/file/line).

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 implies usage: when you need to search across all docs rather than consult a specific reference. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the decision from context.

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