chunk_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does reasonably well: it explains that include_graph performs a cross-session hop via shared entities, that session_id must be a full ID, and that workspace matches by substring. It does not state read-only/rate-limit characteristics, but for a search tool that is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by Args/Returns blocks; each line is informative and none is filler. Slightly more verbose than strictly needed but well structured.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and it correctly gives only a brief Returns summary. It is complete for calling the tool, though the missing routing guidance against siblings leaves a small 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% and there are 5 params, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: it documents query, session_id (full ID, optional), top_k (default 20), workspace (substring match), and include_graph with its cross-session expansion semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search raw conversation chunks from agent session history) plus the retrieval mechanism (hybrid BM25 + semantic). Clear enough to separate from graph_walk and recall, though it never states what those siblings do.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to recall or graph_walk. The include_graph note hints at graph-style behavior but the description never names an alternative tool or the condition that should select it.

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