ocd_search_contexts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it searches settings from cwd, but does not disclose recursive behavior, return format, case sensitivity, whether it searches file names or content, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a search tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes to conveying the core purpose, making it appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description is too thin to fill the gap. It does not explain what a 'context' is, what the search returns (e.g., context names vs. full objects), or how it fits with siblings like ocd_get_contexts. An agent would need more details to confidently invoke this tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema; it merely restates the cwd concept ('cwd から設定を探索') that the schema already covers. No extra value is provided.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'search contexts by keyword' and adds a qualifier about starting from cwd. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list, get, mutate, and commit, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for keyword-based search with cwd as the starting point, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, though the distinct verbs of sibling tools make the intended use apparent.

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