ck_experience_search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that results are ranked with citations and that the search is scoped to the current workspace, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences plus examples, every sentence adds value. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 search tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, return format, and usage scenarios. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists. The tool is adequately described for an agent to invoke 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the query param by giving example questions but does not add new details about limit, project_root, or session_id beyond the existing 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 freeform full-text search across findings and tasks within the current workspace, returning ranked results with citations. It provides specific example queries that illustrate its use, distinguishing it from other tools like ck_experience_read or ck_experience_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?

The description includes example questions that guide when to use the tool (e.g., searching for deployment pattern issues or past SQL performance problems). It does not explicitly exclude situations or mention alternatives, but the context makes its purpose clear.

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