Metis — Find Connections

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

Without annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It specifies keyword matching and the three tables, but omits details about result grouping, pagination, or ordering. Some behavioral context is provided, but not comprehensively.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, one for method and tables, then parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no unnecessary words.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is searched, how, and parameters. It lacks detail on result structure (e.g., grouped by source) but is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: 'content' as the text to find connections and 'limit' with default 5 as max results per source. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, compensating 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?

The description clearly states it searches library, meetings, and news for items related to given text, using keyword matching. This distinguishes it from sibling single-source search tools like search_library, scan_news, etc., by specifying the combined scope.

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 implies usage for cross-source keyword searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_library or search_fulltext. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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