성경 본문 검색

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool performs search with two modes, which is clear. However, it does not disclose read-only nature, side effects, authorization needs, or output format, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 very short and efficient, conveying essential purpose and modes without extraneous text. Every part serves a function, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

For a simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers basic functionality and use case. However, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., verses, passages), leaving the agent without complete context for interpreting results.

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 only partially explains the 'mode' parameter (keyword vs semantic). It does not describe 'query' or 'limit' parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a Bible text search, specifies two modes (keyword partial match and semantic meaning), and gives a use case (action judgment or recalling a verse). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cross_references or word_study, relying on context instead.

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 usage for keyword or semantic search, and for specific recall scenarios. But it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives among siblings.

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