velixar_search

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes reading behavior (search, filtering) and implies no side effects, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe. It adequately covers the basic behavior but lacks depth (e.g., no mention of performance, auth requirements, or effect on system state).

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core functionality and then list filter options. Every word earns its place; there is no irrelevant information or redundancy.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description covers the essential aspects: search method, filtering, and result ranking. However, it lacks details about the output structure (e.g., fields returned, pagination) and could more explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools. Nonetheless, it is largely complete for a search tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description summarizes the filtering capabilities (tags, date range, tier, memory type) but does not add meaningful information beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. No additional constraints or interactions between parameters are explained.

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's function: 'Search stored memories by semantic similarity.' It specifies the resource (memories), the operation (search), and the method (semantic similarity). It also mentions that it returns ranked results with relevance scores, distinguishing it from list or exact-match tools.

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 use for semantic search and mentions ranking, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like velixar_list, velixar_graph_search, or velixar_multi_search. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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