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 read-only behavior, local file operation, and the security principle of treating content as data, not instructions. This provides clear behavioral expectations beyond the basic action.

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 concise (4 sentences) with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and logically flows to constraints and follow-up. Every sentence adds value, achieving a high signal-to-noise ratio.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description adequately explains search fields, return values (ids + snippets), and important constraints (read-only, local files, security). It also suggests a follow-up tool (get_page). While it doesn't detail pagination or default limit, the schema covers those. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the search scope ('across titles, property values, and block text'), which adds semantics beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. This helps the agent understand how the query parameter interacts with the data.

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 'Find' and the resource 'pages', specifying the search method (case-insensitive substring across titles, property values, and block text). It also mentions return values (page ids + snippets) and a follow-up action (get_page), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_page or query_database.

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 explicitly labels the tool as read-only and operating on local backup files, guiding the agent to use it for safe queries. It advises treating backup content as data (a security caution) and suggests following up with get_page. It does not explicitly state when not to use it but provides sufficient context for appropriate use.

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