episodic_search

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: archived-only search, default live-store scope, and the archived hit tag. It does not mention return format, pagination, or side effects, but for a read-only search tool this is acceptable yet 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 compact and front-loaded, opening with a one-sentence purpose. The parameter notes are concise and each adds specific value (archived behavior, repo_path usage). No wasted words.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, default limit behavior, or query semantics. It covers the main options well but leaves out important details like the default limit of 10 and the nature of the keyword matching.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains include_archived and repo_path in detail, adding real meaning beyond the schema. However, it offers no explanation of the required 'query' parameter or the 'limit' parameter, leaving a clear gap for two of four params.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('past episodic events matching a keyword query'), making the core function clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools like org_search or semantic_search_code, but the 'episodic events' scope provides some differentiation.

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 useful context about include_archived and repo_path, implying when those options matter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the guidance primarily implied rather than stated.

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