search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns relevant sections rather than full documents, which is useful, but it does not describe result format, ordering, pagination, or any limitations. For a read-only search tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource before explaining the return value. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 low complexity (two simple parameters, no nested objects) and no output schema, but the description provides the general return shape ('relevant sections from all docs'), which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. Minor details like result structure or snippet format are not necessary for basic use.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the query or maxResults parameters beyond what is already present, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('jam-nodes documentation'), and an explicit scope ('all docs (core API, nodes, editor, guides)'). It also identifies what it returns ('relevant sections'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools that retrieve specific node info, API references, or guides.

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 when searching across multiple documentation sources, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_node_info or get_guide, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The scope is clear, but exclusionary guidance is missing.

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