search_documentation

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

The description adds that results are 'ranked matches', which is useful behavioral context beyond the tool's name. However, without annotations, it does not disclose any limitations, whether the search covers full text, or any side effects. Still, the read-only nature is implied by 'search', and the output schema covers return details.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource directly. No waste, every word contributes to understanding the core function.

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 having an output schema, the description lacks usage guidelines and parameter semantics. Given the simplicity of the tool, a complete description should at least note that 'query' is required and 'limit' controls the number of results.

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 mention the 'query' or 'limit' parameters. The agent gets no semantic guidance on how to construct values, especially the meaning of 'limit' and any constraints on 'query'.

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' with a clear resource 'official chezmoi documentation' and an outcome 'return ranked matches'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_documentation and list_documentation_pages, which imply different actions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention scenarios or alternatives, leaving the agent without contextual selection criteria.

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