search

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

The description discloses that the tool returns matching beliefs with truth values, entry titles, and source snippets. With no annotations, it partially carries the burden, but it omits details on side effects, permissions, or 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?

The description is extremely concise: a one-line purpose, a brief output summary, and a two-line parameter list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return values adequately. However, it lacks usage context relative to siblings and does not specify the scope of the search (e.g., across all projects or single). The presence of an output schema (not shown) may compensate.

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 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that explains both parameters ('query: Search terms', 'project: Project name or UUID'). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though the explanations are minimal.

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 the tool performs full-text search across beliefs, entries, and source documents, listing the specific resources it covers. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'ask' and 'deep_search', which might have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts where it is appropriate, or when to avoid it.

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