ctx_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions that the tool 'Returns relevant memories within the specified token budget,' which reveals a key behavioral trait (token budget control) that is not obvious from the schema alone. As a search tool, it implies read-only access, but this is not explicitly stated. Still, the description adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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 concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. There is no fluff, and the critical information is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has 5 parameters (with 0% schema coverage), no annotations, and an output schema (which may document returns), the description is incomplete. It omits explanations for most parameters and doesn't cover how to construct a query or use scoping. The agent would struggle to use the tool effectively without additional documentation.

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?

The description only indirectly explains one parameter (token_budget via 'specified token budget'). With schema description coverage at 0%, the remaining four parameters (query, limit, scope, context_pack) receive no explanation at all. The description fails to clarify the semantics of key parameters like 'query' or 'scope,' leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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: 'Search persistent project context for rules, decisions, conventions, and facts.' This provides a specific verb (search), resource (persistent project context), and types of content searched. The name 'ctx_search' naturally distinguishes it from siblings like ctx_get (retrieve specific) or ctx_save (store).

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Use this BEFORE writing code to understand project patterns and avoid inconsistencies.' This gives clear context and a specific scenario. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly suggest alternatives among siblings, which would have made it a 5.

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