search_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 behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the search scope (full-text across .md files), output format, and a key limitation (50 result limit). However, it doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like performance characteristics, error handling, or whether the search is recursive through subdirectories. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 concise and well-structured in just two sentences. The first sentence establishes the core functionality and scope, while the second sentence adds crucial behavioral constraints (output format and result limit). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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's moderate complexity (search operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the essentials: purpose, scope, output format, and a key limitation. However, it could be more complete by addressing whether the search is recursive, how results are sorted, or what happens with empty results. The absence of an output schema means the description must fully explain return values, which it partially does but not comprehensively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain directory path formats or query syntax further). According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no additional param info in the description.

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 specific action ('full-text search'), target resource ('.md files in a directory'), and output format ('returns file, line number, and matching line'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_files (which lists files without searching content) and get_section (which retrieves specific sections rather than searching across files).

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 clear context about when to use this tool: for searching content within .md files. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., using list_files to browse files without searching content, or find_code_blocks for specific code block searches). The 'limited to 50 results' constraint offers some usage guidance but doesn't fully address alternative scenarios.

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