bundle_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so excellently. It discloses read-only status, no side effects/auth/rate limits, the rank-order budget behavior, skipped[] remainder, and filter semantics (project_id null = KB only, tags require ALL). This goes far beyond minimal requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then adds behavior and usage. Three sentences with no filler; every clause earns its place. It balances completeness with brevity.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully explains what happens (capped by max_tokens, skipped[] remainder), when to use it, and all important filter semantics. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing more context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating defaults (format=xml, max_tokens=50000) and clarifying combined filter semantics (project_id null = KB only, tags require ALL). This synthesizes schema details into actionable context, though it largely restates schema info, so not a 5.

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 action (FTS search + concatenate into a bundle) and specifies the exact output formats (XML or markdown). It explicitly positions itself against siblings by saying 'Use instead of search + N×read_file when you need several related files as one context blob', distinguishing it from similar tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use instead of search + N×read_file when you need several related files as one context blob.' It also implies when not to use it (for individual files) and sets expectations about budget behavior. This clearly directs the agent to choose this tool over alternatives.

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