kage_docs_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it uses BM25 over heading-anchored chunks from a specific index file, indexes only files on disk, never the internet, and returns ranked hits with specific fields. This exceeds the minimum disclosure requirement.

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 three sentences long, with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, second describes indexing method, third explains output. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (ranked hits with doc_path, heading, line, snippet). It also covers the indexing source and method. For a search tool of this complexity, the description is complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. Although the description does not explicitly detail each parameter, it provides enough context to infer that 'project_dir' refers to the repo path, 'query' is the search string, and 'limit' controls the number of results. However, it lacks specifics like default values or format requirements, leaving some ambiguity.

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 purpose: searching committed documentation in the repo. It specifies the scope (local, committed docs), indexing method (BM25), and data source. The verb 'Search' and resource 'OWN committed documentation' are precise, and it distinguishes from potential internet search tools by stating it never indexes the internet.

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 implicitly guides usage by specifying the tool is for local committed documentation only. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the clarity of scope (repo's OWN docs, not internet) provides enough context for an agent to select this tool over others that might search external sources.

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