omos_search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It accurately describes the search behavior, confirms it returns files with path and link, and mentions it searches both content and names. Could mention pagination or limits but not required for basic transparency.

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?

Two short paragraphs with minimal waste; first sentence immediately states purpose, then parameter list is clean. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded.

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 output schema exists, description need not detail return values; it still says 'Returns matching files with project path and link'. Parameter descriptions are thorough, and sibling references (omos_read, omos_index) provide complete context for usage.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose: query searches content/names, project references omos_index for exact name, section gives concrete examples (BRD, Timeline, etc.). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?

Clearly states verb 'search' and resource 'OMOS drive', specifies full-text search, and explicitly directs to use omos_read for content retrieval, effectively distinguishing from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to use omos_read after search and mentions omos_index for project names, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or describe alternatives beyond omos_read.

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