Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds that the query is evaluated against redacted output, which is a behavioral nuance. However, it does not disclose other traits like rate limits or return format, but given annotations, this is adequate.

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 with two sentences and front-loaded purpose. However, it omits essential parameter and usage information, making it efficient but incomplete. Every sentence earns its place, but more value could be added.

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 tool has 7 parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations are present, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, return values, or provide context for complex searches. The output schema may help, but the description itself lacks completeness.

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 only 14% (only 'paths' has a description). The description does not explain any parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage. With 7 parameters, the agent lacks guidance on parameter usage, reducing effectiveness.

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 searches redacted text and specifies that the query is evaluated against redacted output. This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from unrelated tools. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like redctx_list or redctx_tree, which may have similar purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not to use, or comparisons with sibling tools like redctx_list or redctx_audit. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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