n2_kv_search

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the matching regime ('bounded lexical matching with domain aliases and correction precedence'), the negative trait ('no semantic-only ranking'), and the return payload ('source IDs and matched excerpts'). It does not mention permissions, result ordering, or truncation behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no filler. The second sentence is dense with useful qualifiers, though terms like 'correction precedence' are jargon that may not resolve for a first-time caller.

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?

For a four-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is searched, how matching works, and what comes back (source IDs and excerpts), compensating for the missing output schema. Ordering of results and behavior when no matches exist are the main unaddressed gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that project and agent scope the read and that agent falls back to boot identity, but adds no new detail about query syntax or the maxResults cap beyond what the schema states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('relevant historical snapshots') scoped to one project and agent, which is far more precise than a bare name restatement. It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself from, so it falls short of a 5, though the phrase 'no semantic-only ranking' implicitly separates it from semantic-search siblings like n2_context_search or n2_entity_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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need historical snapshots matching a keyword query within a project. The agent-default behavior ('defaults to boot identity') is stated, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for cases where lexical matching is the wrong choice, leaving routing to inference.

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