lumina_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, the local-service dependency and its failure mode (a clear error if Lumina is not running), the shape of returned fragments (title, date, type, score), and the citation obligation. It stops short of describing result volume or pagination behavior tied to the limit parameter.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: what it searches, then scope values, then safety, then the runtime prerequisite, then the citation rule. Each sentence adds information, though the parenthetical app definition is slightly verbose.

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?

Output schema exists, so the return summary is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the key operational risk (local service down) is covered. The missing limit semantics is the main residual gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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, and it does for scope by enumerating all/documents/meetings/notes (the schema has no enum). But query is only implied and limit is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters completely undocumented.

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 concrete verb (search) plus the exact resource: the user's Lumina database of meeting transcripts, summaries, files and notes, and names the machine-local origin. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like web_search or search_knowledge by scoping the corpus, though it never names those alternatives 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?

The prerequisite that Lumina must be running at 127.0.0.1:47770 gives a usable condition, and 'Solo lee' signals a safe read. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_knowledge or web_search, nor any when-not-to-use statement.

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