citetrail_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not clarify what 'inseparable provenance' means, how results are returned, whether source_state affects behavior, or what happens when captures are unavailable or privacy-blocked. This is a minimal signal rather than transparent behavior.

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 short sentence with no filler or repetition. The core action and resource are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though the cryptic 'inseparable provenance' could have been replaced with more useful information without harming length.

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 relatively simple with only two parameters, but there is no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter-level documentation. The description leaves critical details undefined: what 'local captures' are, what 'inseparable provenance' means, how query matching works, and what the response shape is. This is not enough for an agent to reliably invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description provides no information about either parameter. 'query' and 'source_state' are completely undocumented, and the meaning of the source_state enum values is left entirely to inference. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter 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 a search operation over 'local captures,' which identifies the tool's verb and resource. The phrase 'with inseparable provenance' adds a distinguishing quality, though it is jargon-heavy and not fully explained. With no sibling tools to differentiate from, this is clear enough for basic selection.

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 the tool should be used when searching local captures, giving some usage context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The usage signal is only implicit.

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