search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output format and a requirement, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or costs. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise: two sentences covering purpose, use cases, sibling tool distinction, return format, and a prerequisite. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action.

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 only 2 parameters and an output schema (reducing need to explain returns), the description covers purpose, usage, and a constraint. However, it lacks explanation for the limit parameter and does not elaborate on the output schema or error conditions. Still, it is fairly complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. Only the query parameter is implied by the semantic search context; the limit parameter is not explained at all (default 5, but no indication of its effect on results).

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 it is for semantic search across indexed files, contrasting with search_keyword. It specifies the return format (ranked chunks with file path, file_id, cosine distance).

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 advises use for conceptual questions where exact wording is unknown, and directs to use search_keyword for exact terms. Also notes a prerequisite (ollama server must be running).

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