search_community

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include matching text, source path, and an index build stamp, indicating output freshness, and implicitly a read-only operation. It also notes that coverage can be checked via corpus_status(), which is a useful limitation.

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?

Three sentences that front-load the core purpose, then explain the value of the return payload, and finally provide usage alternatives. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers purpose, return context, and a sibling alternative, and the existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return shape. However, it could mention prerequisites or relationship to search_snippets, and the 'every' claim is subtly tempered by the corpus_status() reference.

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 does not explain the meaning or expected format of 'query' or the behavior of 'limit'. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some extent, but no additional semantic details are provided, leaving ambiguity about query syntax or result count handling.

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 action ('Search every local notebook, model, and script for aligned passages') and clearly differentiates from siblings by recommending search_docs for documentation-only search. It covers what is searched and the 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 explicitly instructs when to call corpus_status() to review index coverage and when to use search_docs, providing clear alternatives and context for choosing this tool over others.

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