unified_search

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

Describes three retrieval arms, RRF fusion (k=60), and Chinese bigram native, adding significant behavioral context beyond the schema. However, lacks mention of read-only nature, rate limits, or result ordering. With no annotations, this is a strong but not exhaustive disclosure.

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?

Two paragraphs with front-loaded purpose and clear technical details. Slightly verbose with algorithm specifics but no wasted sentences; structure supports understanding.

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?

Covers scope, retrieval method, and usage examples. With an output schema present, missing pagination details are acceptable. Still could mention result format briefly, but overall adequate for a complex 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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description reinforces with examples (queries like 'wf_d01f207f') and explains the fusion logic, adding value over the schema alone.

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 'Search across all OS knowledge: task memos, reports, and tasks.' clearly defining scope and distinguishing it from sibling tools like ecosystem_search, memory_search, and pattern_search by being a general unified 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to recall past work' with concrete examples, but does not state when to avoid using it or compare directly to alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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