Project Tessera

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the hybrid search approach and filtering options but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), or any rate limits. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states purpose and usage guidance, the second details filtering options. It's front-loaded with key information and avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for filters).

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose, usage, and some parameter semantics but lacks behavioral transparency details (e.g., safety, performance). The presence of an output schema helps, but gaps remain for adequate agent understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'project' filters by project ID and 'doc_type' filters by specific document types (prd, session_log, decision_log, document), which clarifies two of the four parameters. However, it doesn't explain 'query' (though it's self-evident) or 'top_k' (number of results), leaving some parameters inadequately documented.

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 'Hybrid (semantic + keyword) search across indexed workspace documents' and lists specific document types (PRDs, decision logs, session logs, etc.). This provides a specific verb ('search') and resource ('indexed workspace documents'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deep_search' or 'unified_search' beyond the hybrid approach mention.

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 explicitly states 'Call this tool first when the user asks about project-related content,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also mentions filtering capabilities (by project ID or doc_type), which helps define its scope relative to other search tools in the sibling list.

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