brain_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return fields and recommends a follow-up read, but it does not clarify read-only safety, permission requirements, rate limits, or the behavior of optional parameters such as include_superseded.

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 three short sentences with no wasted language, and the core instruction is front-loaded. Return fields and the recommended next action are packed efficiently into the remaining text.

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 output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not strictly required, though the description mentions fields helpfully. However, for a search tool with four parameters and no annotations, the description should explain optional filters like cortex and include_superseded to support correct invocation.

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 0% for four parameters, and the description does not name or explain query, k, cortex, or include_superseded. The phrase 'relevant to a task' loosely implies a query concept but provides no real parameter semantics, leaving three optional parameters completely undocumented.

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 a specific action and resource: recall notes relevant to a task. It also distinguishes the tool from brain_read by telling the agent to open promising results with brain_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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: call this before any non-trivial step, and use brain_read for promising results. It does not explain when not to use it or how it relates to siblings like brain_list or brain_encode, but the primary usage context is clear.

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