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 states the search is for an exact value, implying exact-match behavior, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works (cursor), what the return format is, or whether it searches across all engagements or just the bound one. These are significant gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence 'scope is segments, entities, or all' is redundant because the input schema already defines this enum. While the overall length is efficient, the redundant content prevents a perfect score.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is significantly incomplete. It does not explain the return format (what a search result looks like), how pagination via cursor and limit work in practice, or the role of engagement. An agent would lack crucial information to correctly use this tool, especially understanding what results to expect.

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 coverage is 60%, which is moderate, so the description should add some meaning beyond the schema. It adds context for the query parameter by giving examples (IP, hostname, username) and clarifying it's an exact value, which the schema's plain 'string' type lacks. However, it does not add anything for limit, cursor, or engagement beyond what the schema already describes, and the scope mention simply repeats the enum.

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 clear purpose: search captured terminal output and entities for an exact value, with concrete examples (IP, hostname, username, filename, secret). It is specific about the resource being searched. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_entities or get_recent_activity, so the distinct value proposition is not fully articulated.

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 alternatives. It never mentions conditions for choosing search over list_entities or get_recent_activity, nor does it state exclusions (e.g., 'use this when you need exact match, not list all'). The only hint is the phrase 'exact value', but no explicit usage context is given.

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