search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the retrieval strategy (hybrid lexical+semantic, graph expansion), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about read-only safety, rate limits, result shape, or pagination/limit behavior for a tool that takes a `limit` parameter.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the alternative-usage caveat last. No filler, though the density comes at the cost of parameter coverage rather than excess verbosity.

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?

Purpose and usage routing are complete, but with 8 parameters at low coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition leaves an agent unable to determine how to scope results by type, status, or time. Adequate for intent, incomplete for invocation.

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 only 38% across 8 parameters. The description alludes to graph expansion (expand) and the code model (code_search) but never explains `before` (git-timestamp co-change scoping), `status`, `entity_type`, or `limit`, leaving several params undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (ranked search) over a specific resource (all entities: code, rules, observations, knowledge) and names the retrieval mechanism (hybrid lexical + semantic with graph expansion). An agent can immediately tell what it returns and how it differs from a plain text matcher.

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 states when to use it ('know the concept but not the exact name', 'want related entities surfaced automatically') and names the competing approach (grep for exact identifier/text matches) with the tradeoff. This is the strongest part of the definition.

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