workspace_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses approximate ranking, non-exhaustiveness, result labelling (corpus, source, field, score, why matched), per-corpus freshness headers, and that exact_match is always false.

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?

Three sentences, purpose-first, no wasted words. Each sentence adds distinct value: scope, usage guidance, and result behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains return structure and freshness reporting. It also covers limitations (approximate, no proof of absence) which is important for a search tool.

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 covers all three parameters with helpful descriptions. The description adds context about FTS5 ranking and interleaving, clarifying how query and corpora behave beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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?

Description opens with 'Ranked discovery across the workspace's indexed corpora: code symbols, doc sections (Markdown/HTML), and project memories' – a specific verb and resource scope. It also names the sibling tool search_in_files as the alternative, establishing clear differentiation from other search tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use workspace_search when you have a conceptual question...' and when not to use: 'Approximate by design and never a proof of absence — the exact lane is search_in_files.' Names the alternative tool and gives an example query.

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