erinys_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the precedence and filtering behavior of allowed_projects/allowed_scopes and the default return-all behavior, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only status, return format, pagination, or error behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core search mechanism in one sentence. The Japanese access-gate paragraph is dense but relevant, and the overall length is reasonable, though the language mixing could hinder scannability.

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?

For a 10-parameter search tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers the retrieval mechanism and access-control semantics but omits critical parameter details and behavioral expectations. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return-format documentation, but does not compensate for the missing parameter guidance.

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 compensate. It only explains allowed_projects and allowed_scopes in detail; the other eight parameters (query, limit, project, principal, intended_use, metadata_filter, include_distilled, include_anti_patterns) remain undocumented, leaving significant ambiguity for invocation.

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 identifies the tool as an RRF hybrid search combining FTS5 keyword and vector similarity. This gives a specific verb/function and the hybrid nature distinguishes it from plain retrieval, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like erinys_recall or erinys_context. The description focuses on access-gate behavior but does not state search scenarios, exclusions, or preferred use cases.

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