searchIndex

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are ranked and that it searches across services, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not specify whether results are real-time, any authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The description is accurate but lacks depth on behavior such as caching or data freshness.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope. It includes examples and filters without redundant words. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is 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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only vaguely mentions 'ranked items' without specifying return structure. It covers core functionality and service scope but omits details on limit and semantic behavior. Given missing annotations and output schema, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 explains 'service' and 'itemType' as optional filters, and 'query' is implicitly the search term. However, 'limit' and 'semantic' are not described. 'semantic' is especially unclear without explanation, leaving a significant gap for a boolean parameter.

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 performs a search over the Nimbus local index across connected services, listing examples. It distinctly separates from sibling tools that focus on specific retrievals (status, recent PRs, deployments, etc.). The verb 'Search' plus resource 'local index' makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 this is the general search tool for finding items across services, while siblings are specific getters. It mentions optional filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. Context is clear enough for an agent to decide, though no direct exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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