never4ga_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well for a read tool: it discloses that lexical search always runs while semantic runs only when an embedder is configured, that lanes are fused by rank, that each result carries a retrieval reason, and that the response signals a stale index. It omits failure modes and any auth/scope constraints, but the disclosed mechanics are substantive.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action ("Search the vault") and then layers the mechanics and return behavior. Nothing is padding, though the semicolon-packed clause about lanes requires a second read.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned (ranked results plus reasons, staleness notice) reasonably well. It still leaves out pagination/default for limit and the scope of the vault relative to sibling corpora, which the schema cannot supply.

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 100%, so the schema already documents limit, query, and explain. The description only alludes to "the reason each was retrieved," which overlaps the explain parameter's own schema text. It adds no meaning beyond what the structured fields provide, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search the vault") and describes the retrieval mechanism, which is clear on its own. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling never4ga_work_search, leaving the agent to infer whether "the vault" includes works or is a separate corpus.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. With never4ga_work_search and never4ga_get_concept among its siblings, the description never tells the agent when this general search is preferable to those. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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