find_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state it is non-mutating or describe the return format (e.g., list of document IDs, snippets). This leaves some uncertainty about what the tool actually does beyond searching, earning a middle 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose, followed by usage context. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose but does not mention what the search returns (e.g., document titles, links, or snippets). Without an output schema, this omission leaves a notable gap in completeness, but the tool is simple enough that the description is acceptable.

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 100%, so both parameters are documented. The description adds value by giving concrete examples of query types (UI components, APIs, architectural guidance), which helps users formulate effective queries beyond the schema's generic description. This extra guidance raises the score above the baseline.

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's function as searching HarmonyOS/OpenHarmony documentation, with specifics on what can be found (UI components, APIs, architectural guidance). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_doc (reading a specific doc) and list_doc_topics (listing topics), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('Use this to find UI components, APIs, or architectural guidance'), providing clear context for search-related tasks. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic selection among siblings.

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