search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It explains that the tool performs semantic search and returns document chunks with metadata, but does not disclose potential limitations such as requiring an index, read-only nature, or error behavior. For a straightforward search tool this is acceptable but not highly informative.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose sentence. It then uses an Args section to detail parameters and a Returns section to describe output, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value, which is adequate for a simple search tool. It does not discuss edge cases like empty results or errors, but the presence of an output schema lessens the need for explicit return details. Overall, it is nearly complete but leaves a few behavioral nuances unaddressed.

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?

The schema provides zero parameter descriptions, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: query is a natural language string, project is an optional filter with a note to leave empty for all projects, top_k has a default and maximum, and file_type lists allowed values. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 tool performs 'Semantic search across indexed project documentation,' specifying both the action and the resource. This differentiates it from sibling search tools like search_code and search_specs, which target different content types.

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 description implies usage for documentation search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. No reference is made to sibling tools or alternative search methods, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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