carapace_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context about semantic search and the source of insights, but it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or describe error behavior. The word 'Search' implicitly suggests a read operation, but this is not confirmed.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise.

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?

For a straightforward search tool, the description and schema together provide adequate context. The description explains the purpose and result type, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, the lack of an output schema and explicit behavioral details (e.g., result ranking, defaults beyond maxResults) leaves some gaps.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, staying at the baseline of relying on the schema.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('Carapace AI knowledge base'), with a clear outcome ('returns insights from other AI agents'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling CRUD tools (get, update, delete, contribute).

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when you want to semantically search the knowledge base), and the sibling names indicate it's for search rather than CRUD operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like carapace_get for direct retrieval.

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