search_local_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a 'local' and read-only activity, but does not state whether it modifies files, whether it indexes on the fly, or what performance characteristics to expect. The description mostly restates the tool's purpose without deeper behavioral transparency.

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, focused sentence with no redundant wording. The 'Local RAG' prefix provides immediate context, and every remaining word contributes to the core purpose. It is optimally concise.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the search returns (e.g., file paths, text snippets, relevance scores), nor does it clarify the role of the 'extension' filter beyond what the schema indicates. For a tool meant to search local docs, the expected output is critical and left undefined.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema: it does not explain the 'extension' default, the exact format of 'directory_path', or how 'query' interacts with the search. Since the schema already covers all 3 parameters, the description doesn't need to add more, but it also provides zero supplementary semantics.

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 specifies the exact action ('semantic search'), the target resource ('a directory'), and the method ('local embeddings'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files_in_directory or query_local_llm, which serve different purposes.

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 'Local RAG' prefix implies a use case (retrieval augmented generation) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over similar alternatives like query_local_file or get_local_embeddings, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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