zotero_semantic_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It comprehensively discloses behavioral traits: searches across all indexed libraries by default, the ability to scope with library_id, the requirement for a populated database, the dependency on the [semantic] optional module, and the example usage. This is thorough and leaves no hidden behavior.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, but it is somewhat lengthy (about 150 words). It could be trimmed slightly without losing essential information, but overall it is efficient and structured.

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 all necessary context: what the tool does, when to use it, prerequisites, parameter details, example usage, and availability. Given that the output schema is provided separately, the description does not need to explain return values. It is fully complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although the schema already describes all 4 parameters (100% coverage), the description adds substantial meaning: for query it notes natural-language phrases work well, for limit it repeats the default, for filters it clarifies it can accept a dict or JSON string and gives an example, and for library_id it explains the values '0' or 'user', references zotero_list_libraries, and clarifies that omitting it searches all libraries. This goes well beyond the 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 it is a 'Prioritized topic-search tool' that finds papers by semantic similarity. It explicitly distinguishes itself from scanning collections or reading abstracts, and provides a concrete example query. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's specific purpose.

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 specifies when to use this tool (for topic searches like 'papers about mindfulness-based therapy'), and contrasts it with less efficient alternatives. It also clearly explains the prerequisite: the semantic search database must be populated via zotero_update_search_database first, and references zotero_get_search_database_status for readiness checking. This provides excellent guidance.

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