workspace_search_theorems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only the active workspace is searched and that both titles and bodies are matched. However, it does not mention whether an active workspace must already be open, whether the operation is read-only, or how optional filters like paper_id and kind affect the search.

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 with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning about the tool's scope and search target.

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 is contextually adequate for a straightforward search tool and benefits from having an output schema. However, with no annotations and no parameter clarification, an agent must guess at the semantics of kind and paper_id and whether a workspace must already be loaded. The description is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 name or explain any of the four parameters. It adds some meaning for 'query' by saying titles and bodies are searched, but kind, limit, and paper_id are left entirely to inference from 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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a concrete resource ('theorem titles and bodies'), and a clear scope ('across the active workspace'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_theorems (listing) and get_theorem (fetching a specific theorem) by emphasizing query-based text search.

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 a text-search use case but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_theorems or get_theorem. It does not state any conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites like 'use when you have a textual query' or 'use list_theorems to browse without a query.'

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