kage_docs_search

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds algorithmic details (BM25, heading-anchored chunks), indexing scope (only files on disk), and output format. No contradictions.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value: what is searched, how it works, what is returned, and what is not indexed.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return fields and indexing source. It covers all essential aspects: scope, algorithm, constraints, and output, making it complete for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining query as search terms, project_dir as absolute path, limit with default, and returns doc_path, heading, line, snippet. It also describes the indexing source.

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 searches committed documentation in the repo, using BM25 over heading-anchored chunks, and returns ranked results with specific fields. It distinguishes from internet search by specifying it indexes only files on disk.

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 needing info from the project's own docs and explicitly says 'never the internet,' which helps avoid misuse. It does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives among siblings, but the context is clear enough.

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