search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, performance implications, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The description simply says 'text search' without detailing side effects.

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 exceptionally concise with two short sentences. Every word is purposeful with no redundancy or filler. The key information 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters including a nested object and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits details about scope, scope_id, filters, and return values. The description does not sufficiently inform an agent about how to use the parameters or what to expect from the output.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only provides minimal meaning for the 'query' parameter. It does not explain the 'scope', 'scope_id', or 'filters' parameters, leaving their semantics unclear beyond what the schema structure offers.

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 tool performs text search across plans, nodes, and content, specifying the verb 'search' and the resource. It also indicates usage for finding entities by title or fragment. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like recall_knowledge, which might also retrieve entities.

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 provides a usage hint ('Use for finding entities by title or fragment') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. It does not address scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate.

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