bookstack_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'advanced search syntax' but doesn't disclose performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the search returns (e.g., result format, pagination behavior beyond schema). This is inadequate for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Search across all content types in BookStack') and adds only essential context ('using advanced search syntax').

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?

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values (e.g., result structure, error handling), behavioral traits like rate limits or permissions, and usage context relative to sibling tools. The schema covers inputs well, but overall context is insufficient.

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 schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the query supports advanced syntax, which is already covered in the schema's description of the 'query' field. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Search across all content types') and resource ('BookStack'), specifying it uses 'advanced search syntax'. It distinguishes from siblings like list operations by focusing on cross-content search, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific alternatives like 'bookstack_pages_list'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'advanced search syntax' but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferable over filtered list operations (e.g., 'bookstack_pages_list'), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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