lesson_query

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful behavior beyond the schema: the optional 'query' performs a hybrid keyword-and-meaning search across specific fields. However, it does not disclose result limiting behavior, ordering, or the fact that status defaults to 'active' (though that is visible in the schema).

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the filtering options and the special hybrid search behavior. Every clause adds value.

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 five-parameter query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main filters and the hybrid search but omits max_results behavior and the response shape. The default status is provided by the schema, but the overall context is adequate yet not fully complete.

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 20%, so the description must compensate. It explains type, project, status, and query semantics, including the hybrid search targeting description/root_cause/prevention. Only max_results is left to the schema, which is largely self-explanatory given the parameter name and default.

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 verb and resource: "Query lessons learned." It also lists the main filter dimensions (type, project, status), making the tool's purpose plain. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like knowledge_search, but the lesson-specific scope is evident enough.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as knowledge_search or lesson_record/lesson_update. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'Query' and the mentioned filter fields, with no exclusions or routing hints.

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