whim_snippet_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 of disclosure. It only says 'search' which implies read-only, but does not state that it does not modify data, what it returns (e.g., list of snippets), or any other behavioral details. The description adds no beyond the basic action.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently. While it is minimal, it is not bloated or redundant, and there is no filler content. It is appropriately concise for a simple search tool, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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?

The tool is simple (search with two parameters), but there is no output schema, so the description should explain the return format or at least mention that it returns matching snippets. It does not. It also lacks context about the nature of snippets (e.g., saved via whim_snippet_save). The description is too terse to be considered complete for an agent to know what to expect from the call.

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% (both 'query' and 'topK' are described in the schema). The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, only the phrase 'keyword overlap' which hints at query matching but does not clarify syntax or defaults. Since the schema covers the parameters, the description adds minimal value, consistent with the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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: searching saved snippets by keyword overlap. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('saved snippets'), and the method ('keyword overlap') distinguishes it from sibling tools like whim_rag_search, which likely searches a different index.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with whim_rag_search or other search tools. The description is a bare statement of purpose without contextual usage instructions.

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