Search DevVault reference material

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavior: items already delivered this session are reported rather than sent twice, and it clarifies the manifest-based selection. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on no match, or the return format—gaps that matter without annotations or an output schema.

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?

Three concise sentences each earn their place: the source of the selection, the query strategy with examples, and the duplicate-delivery behavior. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 no output schema, the description covers how to choose targets, how to phrase the query, and a key behavioral quirk. It does not explain the exact response shape or error behavior, but these are relatively minor given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does meaningfully for the required query parameter by advising agents to search with the vocabulary of the thing being built and giving concrete examples. The collection parameter is already described in the schema, and limit is self-explanatory with its min/max/default, so the description need not repeat them.

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 states a specific verb and resource: pull in a specific piece of the user's saved research, with the selection source (manifest from devvault_context) explicitly named. It also orients the agent with search examples, and the title reinforces the purpose. Its reference to devvault_context distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 gives clear context: use this after devvault_context has returned a manifest, and search using the vocabulary of the thing being built. It does not explicitly list alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it misses the full exclusionary guidance needed for a 5.

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