vector-search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic function. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance characteristics, error conditions, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. For a complex 10-parameter tool with vector operations, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 complex vector search tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what vector search means in this context, how results are returned, what the relationship is between 'vector' and 'embedder' parameters, or how this differs from regular search. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without significant external knowledge.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. However, it does establish the core concept of 'vector search' which provides context for why certain parameters like 'vector' and 'embedder' exist.

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 clearly states the action ('Perform a vector search') and resource ('in a Meilisearch index'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from the sibling 'search' tool, which appears to be a general text search, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose vector search over regular search.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like the 'search' sibling tool. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context requirements, or typical use cases for vector search versus other search methods available in the system.

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