search_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ('best matching sections with their file paths'), which hints at ranked/sectioned results, but says nothing about read-only semantics, ranking behavior, or result truncation beyond what the schema's limit already encodes.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the return behavior second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in detail, and the annotations-less safety profile is low-risk for a search tool. The description is adequate, though it could note that results come from the previously saved/crawled library rather than the live web.

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 site, limit, query, and directory are all documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource - searching saved docs by content - and adds scope via 'saved docs' versus the live-web sibling crawl_docs. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_library, but the 'by content' framing makes the retrieval style clear.

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 is implied by 'search saved docs by content', and the schema note about leaving directory empty implies a global-library fallback. However, no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given, so an agent must infer that list_library covers enumeration and fetch_markdown covers retrieval.

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