Semantic search

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context: ranked output with cosine scores, file path, line range, truncation behavior, and the remedy of increasing limit or switching to get_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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return shape, filters, and truncation guidance. Every sentence contributes usable information.

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 ten-parameter semantic search tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it explains purpose, return values, filter scope, and what to do when results are truncated.

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 ten parameters are already documented in the schema. The description summarizes the filter categories (path prefix, exact path, language, content kind) and mentions limit, but it adds no syntax or default details beyond the structured fields.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Run a semantic similarity query against indexed content.' It distinguishes this from retrieval alternatives by naming get_context for follow-up context when results are truncated.

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?

It gives a clear usage cue: increase limit or use get_context when results look truncated. It also notes available narrowing filters, but it does not explicitly contrast when to use this tool versus other sibling search/index tools beyond the truncation case.

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