semantic_search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Discloses use of LanceDB vectors, Gemini embeddings, and boosting behavior for stack filter. However, does not state that it is a read-only operation, nor mentions any rate limits, authentication, or that it does not modify data.

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?

Very concise: three sentences plus Args list, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated true), the description adequately covers functionality: vector search, embedding model, parameter details, and boosting. No gaps for an agent to misuse or misinterpret.

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 coverage is 0%, but description adds rich meaning for all 3 parameters: query example, top_k default, and stack filter with comma-separated example and boosting effect. This completely compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it is a 'semantic search' using vectors, with specific verb+resource. Differentiates from keyword search and implies distinction from siblings like search_knowledge.

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?

Mentions 'More intelligent than keyword search' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_knowledge, episodic_search, or what constitutes a query suitable for semantic search. No exclusions or explicit context provided.

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