semantic_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does not meet it. It says nothing about read-only safety, whether the index is prebuilt or computed on the fly, latency, or how `root` scopes the search space.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters, but the sentence itself earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description omits how the `root` scope and `top_k` limit behave and offers no routing guidance against the many retrieval siblings (search, find_definition, list_symbols). For a 3-parameter retrieval tool with zero annotation support, that is a meaningful gap.

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% across three parameters. The description clarifies only that `query` is natural language; `root` (default '.', presumably the search scope) and `top_k` (default 5, presumably the result count) get no explanation anywhere, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 a specific verb ('Find'), a concrete resource target ('functions/classes'), and a distinguishing qualifier ('semantically related to a natural-language query'). It implicitly separates itself from the keyword-based `search` and symbol-based `find_definition` siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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 semantic_search versus the sibling `search`, `find_definition`, or `list_symbols`. The only usage signal is the phrase 'semantically related', which the agent must infer means fuzzy/conceptual lookup rather than exact matching.

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