rag_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool performs semantic search, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, whether indexing is required, or any side effects or limitations.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It contains only a phrase with no structure or elaboration, failing to provide necessary context in an efficient way.

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 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to construct a valid query, what topK or namespace mean, or what the response looks like.

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 by explaining the parameters, but it mentions none. The tool has three parameters (query, topK, namespace), and the description adds no meaning beyond their raw names.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'indexed documents', and specifies the retrieval type as 'semantic'. It conveys the tool's core purpose effectively, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like files_list or inspect_storage.

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, nor does it mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools include files_list and kvp_get, but no routing information is given.

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