search_local_cells

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only says 'Search cell sources', giving no indication of side effects, read-only nature, limitations, or behavior. The agent cannot infer whether the tool modifies state or requires special permissions.

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 concise sentence, but it lacks structure and critical details. It is not front-loaded with key information; it is too brief to be maximally useful without sacrificing clarity.

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 has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description should provide more context about how to effectively use it (e.g., what 'cell sources' means, typical usage). The current description leaves too much unsaid for reliable tool invocation.

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%, yet the description adds no information about any parameter. It does not explain the role of 'path' (file path?), 'query' (search string?), or 'case_sensitive', leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and types, which is insufficient.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'cell sources in a local notebook', which immediately conveys the core function. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_local_cell or delete_local_cell, making its unique purpose evident.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate (e.g., get_local_notebook to retrieve notebook contents).

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