Search Simplicial Lattice Facts

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint: true. The description reinforces this by stating 'Read-only with no side effects,' which adds explicit language beyond the annotation. It does not contradict the annotation and gives a clear behavioral statement about the tool's non-mutating nature.

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, each earning its place: purpose, usage guidance, and read-only note. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately distinguishes from a sibling, with no redundant or extraneous wording.

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 presence of an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage, alternative, and side-effect statement. It omits details like ordering or match thresholds, but these are not critical given the schema richness. Slight room for improvement in describing result semantics, but overall 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 100%, so all parameters are already described. The description adds minimal extra value, only reiterating that query terms are for entity names and keyword discovery, which is largely already in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 explicitly states the tool searches memory lattice nodes and decoded facts via keyword overlap and proximity, covering both resource and method. It also distinguishes itself from a sibling (icx_recall_scoped) by contrasting its use case, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this tool for entity exploration or keyword discovery' and 'For natural language question answering with grounded factual citations, use icx_recall_scoped instead.' This clearly indicates when to use and when not to use, with a named alternative.

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