search_ignition_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It adds the useful behavioral detail that it always searches the latest version, but it does not mention any limitations, side effects, or safety profile (e.g., read-only nature). For a search tool, this is a moderate disclosure.

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 two sentences with the key action and resource front-loaded. Every sentence contributes: the first states the core function, the second provides use-case guidance. No wasted words.

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 description is reasonably complete for a simple search tool: it covers purpose, topics, and version. However, it lacks parameter explanations and does not reference sibling tools for alternative use cases. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return value details, but the missing parameter semantics is a clear gap.

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 only implies that 'query' is a natural language question (via 'questions about...'), but 'n_results' is entirely unexplained. Neither parameter gets meaningful semantic elaboration.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('the Ignition User Manual'), and specifies that it always uses the latest version. It also enumerates covered topics (configuration, tags, scripting, modules, gateways, designers), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_ignition_sdk.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for questions about...' and lists relevant topics, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., search_ignition_sdk), so it falls short of a 5.

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