جستجو در پیام‌ها

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add context — and it does: result ordering (newest first), that each hit carries its owning conversation, and the Arabic ي/ك vs Persian ی/ک normalization quirk that would otherwise cause silent misses. It does not mention paging limits or result caps, but the offset parameter documents paging in the 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?

Two front-loaded sentences: the core behavior first, then a clearly flagged 'Tip' for the one non-obvious gotcha. Both sentences earn their place, though the parenthetical scope aside is slightly redundant with the schema enum.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back — it names the hit's conversation and ordering, which is the essential shape. Paging is delegated to the offset parameter. Minor gaps remain (no result-count limits, no indication of match/highlight format), keeping it short of 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so query, scope and offset are already fully documented with defaults and enum meanings; baseline 3 applies. The description restates the chat-vs-customers scope split and the Persian/English query hint without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search across every chat message'), names both scopes (workspace chats vs customer conversations), and adds result ordering ('newest first') plus the payload ('with the conversation each hit belongs to'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like mizito_get_messages, mizito_list_conversations and mizito_get_message_info, which are retrieval-by-id or listing tools rather than 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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'search' and the scope/tip, but the description never states when to prefer this over mizito_get_messages, mizito_list_conversations or mizito_api_read, nor any exclusions. The 'Tip' addresses how to phrase the query (Arabic vs Persian glyphs), not which tool to choose, so routing guidance remains implicit.

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