search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dual-source behavior (in-memory knowledge graph + files on disk) and the return format (matches with context). It does not mention safety (read-only) but 'Search' implies a non-mutating operation. The added detail about sources is valuable.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every word adds value; no fluff or redundancy.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states sources, return format, and what context comes with matches. It lacks pagination/limit details, but for a tool with this low complexity, that is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats that the search is 'by keyword' but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's example list. It gives some context on what the keyword searches across, but not enough to raise the score.

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 verb 'Search' and the resources searched (features, endpoints, files, screens). It conveys the broad scope but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like reverse_lookup or get_context, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provides clear context on what the tool searches (knowledge graph and file contents) and what it returns, making usage understandable. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for a general-purpose search tool.

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