specir_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it 'searches', but fails to mention whether it is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, or how it handles the 'mode' parameter. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specification for a tool of this complexity. While there is no wasted wording, the description lacks critical details about parameters and behavior, making it less 'appropriately sized' than a truly concise yet informative description would be.

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?

Although an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values), the description still omits parameter semantics and behavioral details. With four parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be considered complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, and the description makes no mention of any parameters. The schema shows four parameters (mode, spec, limit, query) with defaults, but the description does not explain their meaning or usage, leaving the agent to guess. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple 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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource types ('structured entities or raw passages'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve, fetch, explain, and status. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes 'structured entities' or 'raw passages', leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred contexts, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like specir_resolve or specir_fetch. The agent receives no directional help for tool selection.

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