fts_search

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 this is a search operation and mentions BM25 ranking, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not clarify result ordering, pagination, or whether it searches raw logs or just template patterns, so transparency is partial.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It communicates the core operation, the search method, and the target resource efficiently.

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 definition is adequate for a simple keyword search tool, but with no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, it leaves several operational details unstated, such as what the limit controls and what a result looks like. It is minimally viable but not 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%, and the description adds no information about the two parameters. The query parameter and limit parameter are left entirely to their names and types, with no explanation of syntax, semantics, or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') with a clear resource ('log template text') and even specifies the algorithm (BM25). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like similar_patterns or sql_query, but the focus on full-text keyword search over templates is distinct enough for an agent to orient.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool when you need keyword-based full-text search over log template text. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool might be a better fit, so the agent has to infer the boundaries.

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