hebbrix_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and delivers: it discloses that zero-relevance padding rows are dropped, that uncalibrated candidates are auto-verified, and that noise is suppressed. It also states the return format. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 efficiently structured: the critical usage directive is front-loaded, followed by behavioral details and a return format snippet. Every sentence adds value with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers usage context, key parameter semantics, behavioral details, and return format. With the output schema available, the omission of limit/collection_id explanations is a minor gap. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though more parameter guidance would elevate it.

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?

The description explains min_score's purpose ('explicit absolute relevance floor') and range (0.0-1.0), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about query, limit, or collection_id; those rely solely on schema titles and defaults. Since schema coverage is low, the description only partially compensates for the gap.

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 states 'Semantic search over memories' with a clear verb and resource, and the instruction to 'Always call this BEFORE answering questions...' provides strong context. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the memory-search step prior to answering, which is distinct from hebbrix_ask or hebbrix_search_entities.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Always call this BEFORE answering questions that depend on prior context, decisions, or user preferences.' It also offers a conditional instruction for raising min_score. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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