luneos_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 case-insensitivity and the return shape (matching lines, surrounding context, originating topic), which is genuinely useful. It is silent, though, on result limits, pagination, and behavior on zero matches.

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?

Three tight sentences ordered as what-it-does, what-it-returns, when-it-is-good. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, matching semantics, and return format adequately. Missing only operational details such as result caps or pagination behavior.

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 schema already documents both 'query' and 'context_lines' (including the default of 2 and the 0-10 bound). The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 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 (LuneOS knowledge base) with the scope qualifier 'across the whole knowledge base', which implicitly distinguishes it from luneos_get_topic and luneos_list_topics. However, it never names those siblings, so differentiation is left to the agent's inference.

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 final sentence gives concrete query examples ('wait_for_prop', 'EGL_BAD_ALLOC', config options, file names) which helps the agent craft a query, but it never states when to prefer this tool over luneos_get_topic or luneos_list_topics, nor any exclusion conditions.

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