Search Documents

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

There are no annotations to back up the description, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states what is searched (name/path) but does not disclose the nature of the search (exact match, fuzzy), whether results are paginated, what is returned (list of documents? paths?), or any side effects. Since it's a search, it's likely read-only, but that isn't stated. This is a significant gap.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the main action and scope. No unnecessary words. It is concise and readable. It would earn a 5 if it included a bit more useful context, but for its brevity it is well-structured.

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?

For a simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what the result looks like (e.g., a list of matches) or mention any limitations. It lacks this. Additionally, because there is a sibling 'search_content', the description should clarify the difference, but it doesn't. The description is too minimal to fully equip an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter (query) with a description ('Texto para pesquisar.'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter's semantics, such as case sensitivity, wildcards, or format. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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 states a specific verb ('busca' – search), a resource ('documentos da Wiki' – Wiki documents), and a scope ('pelo nome ou caminho' – by name or path). This gives a clear purpose and implicitly differentiates from the sibling 'search_content' (which likely searches content). However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or articulate the differentiation, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the alternatives (list_documents, read_document, search_content). It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where another tool would be more appropriate. Without this, an agent may struggle to choose the correct tool.

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