qcli_docs_search

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, but the description still earns credit by disclosing the return shape: 'Section › Topic' entries with a summary and an excerpt. With no output schema, this is the main disclosure the agent needs; ranking criteria and excerpt length are left implicit.

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 what is searched, followed by the return format and the follow-up tool. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description supplies the corpus, the result shape, and the next step, which is sufficient to invoke it correctly. The only missing piece is the boundary against qcli_api.

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 both parameters (query, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no query syntax or matching-behavior detail beyond that baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A specific verb (Search) plus a clearly scoped resource (the Qodalis CLI plugin-development guide, enumerated as web plugins, server plugins, recipes). It is directly distinguishable from the qcli_docs_read sibling, which it names.

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 routes the agent: search here to get best-matching topics, then 'read one in full with qcli_docs_read'. That covers the search-then-read workflow, but it never contrasts this with qcli_api, which an agent could plausibly choose for reference lookups, so the sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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