semantic_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the heterogeneous return type and presence of __typename for entity branching. However, it does not state that the tool is read-only, nor does it explain pagination behavior or rate limits. The information provided is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise at three sentences, with the most critical information (purpose and usage guidance) front-loaded. Every sentence contributes value without 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 tool with 4 parameters and a rich output schema, the description covers the return type and usage context well but leaves parameter behaviors (pagination, scoping) unexplained. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates the need to detail return values, but parameter semantics are insufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no parameter-specific details. The 'query' parameter is implied by the tool's purpose, but 'first', 'after', and 'workspace' are unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 performs semantic search across the workspace and returns heterogeneous node types with a typename discriminator. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_issues by emphasizing conceptual vs. exact 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?

The description explicitly advises using this tool when the search target is conceptual rather than an exact string, providing a clear usage criterion. However, it does not mention alternatives for exact-string queries (e.g., search_issues), which would strengthen guidance.

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