query_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well: it explains the hybrid matching strategy, warns that returned order — not score — is the ranking, and clarifies 'score (lower is closer)'. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent must know before interpreting results. It stops short of stating read-only safety or empty-result behavior, but for a search tool that is a minor gap.

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 with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, and sentences two and three each add distinct, high-value behavioral and return-format facts. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Complete for a search tool with a rich schema: it documents the return shape (critical since there is no output schema), the ranking-vs-score nuance, and the conditional 'source' field. Remaining gaps — pagination beyond limit=100, empty-result behavior, and an explicit read-only statement — are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 already documents all three parameters in detail, including limit's default/range and scope's prefix-matching semantics. The description adds modest value by explaining what score means and that order is authoritative, which gives semantic weight to the limit tradeoff, but it does not need to compensate for any coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('ingested documents'), and a method ('hybrid keyword + semantic matching'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_files, read_chunk_neighbors, and the ingest/sync tools. The result-field list (filePath, chunkIndex, text) makes it unambiguous that this searches document content rather than listing the file tree.

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?

Parameter-level guidance is strong: the query description tells when to preserve user terms vs. add context, and the scope description warns that relative prefixes match nothing and suggests deriving one from an earlier filePath. However, the description never explicitly states when to choose query_documents over a sibling such as list_files or read_chunk_neighbors; the use case is implied by the word 'search' rather than stated.

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