mockzilla_docs_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently describes the output format (topic, heading, snippet) and implies read-only behavior via 'search' and 'identify which topic to read'. However, it does not explicitly state it has no side effects or require authentication, which is acceptable 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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence states action and result format. Second sentence provides usage guidance. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (topic, heading, snippet). It also provides usage context (use before answering). Could mention that limit controls the number of results, but that is partly in the schema. Overall complete for a search tool.

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 50%: query is described well in the schema ('Free-text query...'), but limit lacks a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema. The limit parameter is somewhat self-explanatory with min/max/default, but the description could have clarified its role (e.g., 'number of top results to return').

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 it searches docs by keyword and returns top-scoring sections with topic, heading, snippet. It distinguishes from siblings like mockzilla_docs_read (which reads full topics) and mockzilla_docs_topics (which lists topics) by focusing on search. The verb 'search' and resource 'mockzilla docs' are specific.

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?

Explicitly advises to use this tool BEFORE answering questions about mockzilla syntax, conventions, or features when uncertain, stating 'the docs are the source of truth, your training is not'. This provides clear context for when to use vs. relying on memory, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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