brain_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it performs search and lists data sources, but does not mention whether it is read-only, destructive, or any side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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 that front-load the core purpose and usage guidance. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured with line breaks for readability.

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 is a simple search with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers its purpose and usage context. It explains the data scope and when to use, but lacks behavioral details.

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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema with meaningful descriptions. The description adds context about the search algorithm (BM25+) and scope, enhancing the parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 it is 'BM25+ full-text search over ALL brain data' and enumerates the data types (lessons, context entries, etc.). Explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool smart_recall by noting its broader scope.

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?

Provides direct guidance: 'Use when smart_recall returns nothing or when you want to find anything the brain knows about a topic.' This clearly indicates when to choose this tool over the alternative.

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