brain_search

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

No annotations are provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It only mentions search scope and usage, but omits aspects like read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. The agent lacks key behavioral context.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and scope, the second gives usage guidance. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 no annotations, the description should explain return format or limitations. It only covers usage and scope, leaving gaps for a search tool. However, it does differentiate from a key sibling, so it is minimally complete.

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 100% with standard param descriptions. The tool description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., query is 'What to search for'). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 BM25+ full-text search over all brain data types (lessons, context entries, session history, CKG nodes, roadmap items). It uses a specific verb and resource, and contrasts with smart_recall to differentiate.

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 says to use when smart_recall returns nothing or when wanting to find anything the brain knows. Provides clear context for when to choose this tool over a sibling.

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