search_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'search' without detailing return format, pagination, read-only nature, or any constraints. This is a significant gap for a tool that could be used for context retrieval.

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, direct sentence that starts with the action verb 'Search'. It contains no redundant words or information, making it highly concise and well-suited for quick comprehension.

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 is simple with two parameters, and the schema fully documents them. However, without an output schema or annotations, the description could have been more complete by describing the nature of results (e.g., list of document IDs, snippets) or any additional context to set expectations. It provides a minimum viable description but lacks depth.

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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' having descriptive comments. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only hinting at the content type ('context, guidelines, and rules'). This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 tool 'search[es] the company knowledge base for relevant context, guidelines, and rules', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_document and list_documents by focusing on searching rather than retrieving or listing specific documents, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where search_context is preferred over sibling tools or any exclusion criteria. The sibling names imply broader document operations, but the description itself offers no usage direction.

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