syndicate_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are ranked by confirm_count then recency and provides an example output format. While it doesn't cover rate limits or auth, the behavioral traits of a search tool are well communicated.

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 structured with a purpose statement, usage advice, and an example. It is relatively concise for the information conveyed, though the example could be separated for clarity.

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 tool purpose, ranking, and usage, but lacks explicit details about the full return structure (e.g., whether it returns a list of objects with specific fields). The example hints at the format but is not exhaustive, which is a gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 the description adds limited extra value. It mentions that leaving q empty returns most recent lessons and gives a category prefix hint, but these are minor enhancements to already clear schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as searching the 'GLOBAL Cachly Knowledge Commons' for community solutions, distinguishing it from siblings like brain_search and fedbrain_search by emphasizing the global scope and community contributions. The specific verb 'search' and resource noun phrase make the purpose unmistakable.

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 advises using this tool 'BEFORE debugging any unknown issue', providing a clear use case. However, it does not list any conditions when to avoid it or name alternative tools for comparison, which would strengthen the guidance.

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