search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the search and ranking behavior and provides scoring details via the min_score parameter. However, it does not mention aspects like rate limits, auth requirements, or no-result handling. It adds value beyond schema but not enough for a higher score.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the main action ('Semantic search over indexed specs'), then details return type and optional filters. Every part earns its place with zero waste.

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 tool's simplicity and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers the search functionality and return type. No output schema exists, but the description notes 'returns relevant markdown chunks ranked by similarity', which is sufficient. Minor gap: no mention of pagination, but acceptable 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra context beyond the schema, which already thoroughly explains parameters like min_score with cosine similarity and section filtering. The description's mention of 'optional filters' is redundant with the schema.

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 performs semantic search over indexed specs, returning relevant markdown chunks ranked by similarity. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly as 'index' is for indexing and 'status' for checking status, but the purpose is very specific and action-oriented.

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 mentions optional filters (file, section, chunk type) which guide usage but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus its siblings (index, status) or provide exclusion criteria. The usage context is clear but lacks formal guidance.

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