abba_docs_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them: it declares the return format (matching lines with their file), that the corpus is bundled/local, and a version constraint tied to the server bundle and ABBA release.

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?

Purpose and return shape are front-loaded, which is good, but the middle sentence ('For assistants without file access: with file access, grep...') is grammatically tangled and the closing version/bundle metadata reads like packaging notes rather than invocation guidance.

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 single-parameter read-only search with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything needed: what is searched, what comes back, and when to avoid it. Only pagination or result-size limits are unaddressed, which is minor here.

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% and the single parameter is documented as a case-insensitive regular expression. The description only restates 'with a regular expression', adding no syntax, anchoring, or anchoring/escaping guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (search) and resource (bundled ABBA documentation), and enumerates what the bundle contains (guides, one file per command, scripting, examples) plus the return shape (matching lines with their file). It does not name the sibling abba_docs_read, so the search-vs-read split must be inferred from 'returns matching lines'.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not: if the assistant has file access, grep the docs folder named in the instructions instead. That is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming the sibling tool abba_docs_read as the way to read what search finds, and the conditional sentence is phrased awkwardly.

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