omega_rag_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the search type (semantic similarity), return format (JSON array with specific fields), and implies read-only behavior. Could mention idempotency or side effects but is adequate for a search tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, then usage and return structure. Every sentence adds value and no 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?

For a simple search tool with well-described parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies the return format (fragment, similarity_score, quality_score, source, tier). No gaps remain.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds a natural-language query example and repeats the top_k range, but does not provide significant extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a provenance RAG store using semantic similarity and returns ranked text fragments. It distinguishes itself from the sibling omega_vault_search, which does exact keyword matching.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this for meaning-based search; use omega_vault_search instead for exact keyword matching.' This provides clear context for when to use this tool and an alternative.

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