Search Jmp Docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns excerpts and handles JMP's non-obvious naming conventions, which is useful. However, it does not explain limitations, result relevance behavior, or whether output is restricted by book unless specified.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. The naming-convention paragraph is high-signal and not redundant with the schema.

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 rich input schema, an output schema, and a fairly simple search operation, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks sibling differentiation and some usage context, but those are already accounted for in other dimensions.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for the query parameter by giving concrete examples of JMP naming translation. This helps an agent understand that query terms will be mapped to JMP's official terminology.

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 searches JMP 19.1 documentation and returns excerpts, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like find_menu_path or get_jmp_page, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the tool is for natural-language doc searches, and the query schema parameter reinforces this, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer search_jmp_docs over related tools such as find_example, browse_jmp_toc, or whats_this. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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