search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses local full-text search, relevance sorting, and hit highlighting. Does not mention indexing delays, case sensitivity, or other behavioral traits, but is generally transparent for a search tool.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences. First sentence defines the tool, second gives usage workflow. No redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 3 params and no output schema, description covers purpose, workflow, and basic behavior. Lacks output format details, but highlighting hint provides some. Slightly incomplete for a fully autonomous agent, but adequate for simplicity.

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% (all params documented). Description adds no extra parameter details beyond schema; baseline is 3. It does not elaborate on query syntax or limit behavior beyond what's in 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'search', resource 'local full-text index', and output 'results sorted by relevance with hit highlighting'. It distinguishes from sibling 'preview' by suggesting a workflow: first use search to locate, then preview for context.

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?

Explicit workflow guidance: '先用这个工具定位候选文件，再用 preview 看更长的上下文' (first use this tool to locate candidates, then preview for context). This tells when to use this tool vs the sibling.

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