search_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the search method (hybrid BM25 + semantic), temporal decay, and return format (chunks with source, section, line numbers). No contradictions, but could mention potential limitations like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 sentences: first sentence defines purpose and scope, second adds method and output details. Every word contributes value; no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description explains return format (chunks with source, section, line numbers). It lacks mention of pagination or whether results are exhaustive, but for a search tool this is adequate.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds overall context for the 'query' parameter but does not significantly augment the existing parameter descriptions for 'top_k' and 'mode'. The mention of hybrid search parallels the mode enum.

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 verb ('search'), resource ('all indexed project knowledge'), and scope (includes copilot-instructions, skills docs, runbooks, session docs). It differentiates from sibling tools that list or read specific items.

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 implies usage for finding relevant knowledge across projects but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_sessions, read_source, or search-specific siblings. No direct comparison or exclusions are given.

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