pageindex_local_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'vectorless reasoning-based retrieval' and 'local LLM', offering some behavioral insight, but fails to disclose key traits such as read-only nature, performance implications, required permissions, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full operational context.

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-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. However, given the tool's complexity (6 parameters), the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. It is efficient but could better serve the agent with more structured detail.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers only the core purpose, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage, return values, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a retrieval tool that likely returns structured results.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not compensate: it explains none of the 6 parameters (including 'model', 'maxResults', 'documentIds', etc.). An agent has no information about how to use these parameters effectively.

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 action ('perform vectorless reasoning-based retrieval') and resource ('locally indexed PageIndex documents'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle operations like indexing, listing, or getting individual documents. The mention of 'using a local LLM' further specifies the method.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. Without context, an agent cannot differentiate this search tool from other document access tools like 'pageindex_local_get_document' or 'pageindex_local_list_documents'.

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