RAG MCP Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches a RAG database but doesn't describe what 'RAG database' entails, how results are returned, whether it's read-only or has side effects, performance characteristics, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief parameter explanation. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly rather than a separate 'Args:' section.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, 2 parameters (one optional), and 0% schema coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it minimally adequate but incomplete for effective agent use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'keyword' as a 'Search query' and 'dir_path' as an 'Optional directory to search in' with default behavior. This clarifies semantics beyond the bare schema, but it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., path syntax) or search specifics (e.g., case sensitivity), leaving some gaps.

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 purpose: 'Search for keyword in RAG database.' This specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('RAG database'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'read_raw_file' (which likely reads files rather than searching indexed content), so it misses the highest score.

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 mentions the optional 'dir_path' parameter but doesn't explain when to specify it or when other tools might be more appropriate. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or comparisons with 'read_raw_file', leaving usage decisions unclear.

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