semantic_search_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'semantic search' and 'natural language', it doesn't describe how results are returned (e.g., relevance scores, format), whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), performance characteristics, or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. The description is too vague for a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every phrase ('Semantic search over file embeddings', 'Use natural language to find relevant content across files') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, 3 required), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or provide any details about parameter usage. For a search tool with multiple filtering options, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about parameters like 'tenant_id', 'project_id', 'top_k', 'file_ids', or 'threshold', leaving their purposes and usage completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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's purpose: 'Semantic search over file embeddings' with the specific action 'Use natural language to find relevant content across files.' It distinguishes itself from 'search_files' by specifying semantic search (natural language understanding) rather than keyword-based search, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_file_metadata'.

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 context ('Use natural language to find relevant content') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_files' or 'get_file_metadata'. It provides no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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