hpc_search_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the search covers 'all cluster documentation,' which is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not describe return format, ranking, matching behavior, or result limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The verb, resource, and input type all appear immediately with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should at least hint at what a search returns (matching doc names, snippets, ranking), and it does not. For a simple read-only search tool this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about results and about its place among the doc-related siblings.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the single query parameter. It minimally clarifies that the value is a keyword or phrase rather than a path or regex, but adds no syntax, format, or matching-rule detail.

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?

States a clear verb (search) plus resource (cluster documentation) and the input type (keyword or phrase). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like hpc_read_doc or hpc_search_in_file, so an agent must infer which is appropriate.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Given the presence of hpc_list_docs, hpc_read_doc, and hpc_search_in_file, the description never tells the agent when this broad search is preferred over those alternatives.

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