Semantic search across your org's artifacts in AgentDrive. Returns the top-N most relevant files. Use this BEFORE writing similar artifacts to avoid duplication and surface prior context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| top_k | No | Max hits to return (default 10, max 50) | |
| filter | No | ||
| workspace_id | No | Scope to a single workspace; omit for org-wide search |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It properly indicates the tool is read-only (semantic search) and describes output as top-N files. It could be more explicit about being non-destructive, but the behavior is sufficiently implied.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, no fluff. Every sentence earns its place with purpose and usage advice.
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 description covers purpose and usage context, but with no output schema, it omits return structure details (e.g., file metadata). For a search tool with nested parameters, this leaves some ambiguity.
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 75% (query, top_k, workspace_id described), but the filter object's nested properties lack descriptions in both schema and tool description. The description adds no parameter-specific value beyond schema.
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 performs semantic search over org artifacts (AgentDrive), returning top-N relevant files. This verb+resource specification differentiates it from siblings like drive_list or drive_read.
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 explicitly advises using this tool 'BEFORE writing similar artifacts to avoid duplication and surface prior context,' providing clear when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but drive_context, drive_recall, and drive_search have overlapping retrieval semantics that could confuse an agent. drive_activity and drive_log_run also have potential ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'drive_verb_noun' pattern with clear verbs (e.g., drive_list, drive_write, drive_delete). No mixing of conventions.
20 tools is a reasonable number for a comprehensive workspace management server, covering file operations, collaboration, sandbox, and context retrieval. Not excessive, but slightly above the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool surface covers core CRUD for files, comments, sharing, search, roles, and sandbox features. Missing some minor operations like updating comments or renaming files, but no critical gaps for typical workflows.
