search

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, case-insensitive substring matching, and tag requirement (all tags must be present). It does not describe behavior when no parameters are provided (likely returns all thoughts) but overall is transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds meaningful detail.

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 no output schema, the description explains return values (numbers, content, tags). It covers the main use cases but lacks details about pagination or handling of empty results. Still, it is adequate for a search tool.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the search semantics (case-insensitive, requires all tags, branch limiting) beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 searches thoughts by text content, tags, or both, with specific matching behavior. It distinguishes from siblings like get_thought (by ID) and think (adds thoughts) by focusing on full-text/tag search.

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 provides context about searching within the current session and available search modes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if thought ID is known) or list alternative tools.

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