search_context

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions substring search and empty query behavior, but omits critical details like case sensitivity, search scope (e.g., per project from project_id), pagination behavior, and return structure. The limit parameter is not explained.

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 extremely concise with two front-loaded sentences. Every word serves a purpose: first sentence defines scope and action, second adds a key edge case condition. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct invocation. It omits what constitutes the blackboard, how limit behaves, and the nature of substring matching (exact, fuzzy, case). The empty query note is helpful but insufficient for reliable use.

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%, and the description adds no value beyond the schema. It only indirectly implies the query parameter via 'substring', but does not explain project_id or limit. The agent receives no help interpreting parameter meanings or formats.

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 searches a 'shared blackboard' by substring over keys, content, and tags, and specifies behavior for empty queries. It is a specific verb on a specific resource, making the purpose unmistakable even among diverse siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or comparative context with sibling tools such as get_briefing or list_projects.

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