org_wide_search

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

Describes return structure but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation with no side effects. Since no annotations exist, description carries full burden; could be more transparent about non-destructiveness and potential costs (e.g., rate limits).

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?

Concise: three short sentences cover purpose, usage, return structure, and a note for Claude. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with primary function.

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?

Adequate but missing parameter explanations and error handling. Returns structure is helpful, but without clarifying 'top_k' meaning or potential limitations, an agent may not use it correctly in all contexts.

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% (no descriptions in input schema). The description does not explain the parameters (query, top_k) at all, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. Agent has no guidance on what 'query' or 'top_k' mean.

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?

Clearly states verb 'searches' and resource 'memories across ALL registered repos'. Distinguishes from siblings: org_search (legacy fallback) and cross_repo_search (for explicit scope control).

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use this tool: default for cross-repo queries, prefer over org_search, use cross_repo_search for scope control, fallback to org_search if empty. Provides clear alternatives and conditions.

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