semantic_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the method (semantic matching), the return contents (document path, section breadcrumb, similarity score), and the recommended follow-up. It does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or error/limit behavior, but for a read-only search tool the provided behavioral context is strong.

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 well-structured and concise: it opens with the core purpose, follows with usage guidance, names an alternative, and closes with return details and a follow-up action. Every sentence contributes necessary information without 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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, use cases, exclusions, return contents, and a follow-up workflow. An output schema exists, so return type details are not needed in the description. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 clarifies that the 'query' is meant to be a natural-language conceptual phrase, but it does not describe the 'limit' parameter beyond what the schema's default value implies. The description adds partial value for query semantics but under-explains limit.

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 'Find passages in the knowledge base by meaning rather than keywords' — a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from keyword-based search by naming search_knowledge as the alternative, which helps an agent understand the tool's specific role even among sibling tools.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when the question is conceptual or the user's wording is unlikely to match the note's wording verbatim' and 'For exact strings, literal identifiers, or filenames, prefer knowledge-mcp's search_knowledge instead.' This clearly states when to use and when not to use, plus a follow-up call to read_knowledge.

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