ora_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool searches memory but does not disclose any behavioral traits like read-only nature, permission requirements, or return format. However, 'search' implies read-only, so it's not misleading but lacks depth.

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?

Two concise sentences: first defines the tool's purpose, second provides usage context. 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?

Given no output schema and 5 parameters fully described in schema, the description is complete enough for a search tool. Could mention result ordering or pagination, but not essential.

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 100%, so baseline 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it only mentions types of results which are already covered by the 'type' enum.

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 searches in ORA memory (notes, components, files, folders), using the verb 'Recherche'. It distinguishes from siblings like ora_capture_note or ora_list by focusing on search.

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 says to use it when the user has a problem or is looking for something, or via the slash command. It provides clear context, though no exclusion or alternatives are mentioned, it's sufficient given sibling tools are not search-focused.

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