search_semantic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the vector-index dependency, the background outbox worker, and the seed_ids fallback. It also mentions that the tool expands via query_subgraph. It does not disclose the return format or any side effects, but for a search tool this is acceptable.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It covers the action, the conditional behavior, and the when-to-use guidance without unnecessary verbosity.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key context: the search mechanism, the fallback, the expansion via query_subgraph, and the applicable use case. It does not describe the return format, but with no output schema and clear param details, this is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining the relationship between query and seed_ids, clarifying when each is appropriate, and noting the fallback behavior. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Semantically search the Knowledge Structure of a session.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explaining that it uses natural language queries instead of exact IDs and mentions query_subgraph as an internal helper. The resource and scope are well-defined.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you don't know exact object IDs but have a description of what you're looking for.' It also explains when to pass seed_ids instead, covering both the primary and fallback scenarios. This makes the usage context unambiguous.

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