rationale_search

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool searches cached snippets but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or whether it modifies state.

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 a single efficient sentence with no waste. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, error handling, or what constitutes a 'rationale snippet,' leaving the agent underinformed.

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 only 29%. The description adds no meaning beyond 'by keyword' for the query parameter. It fails to explain the other 6 parameters (limit, include, worktree, etc.), which are left to the schema alone.

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 searches 'cached GitHub rationale snippets (review comments, PR/issue discussion) by keyword,' providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like semantic_search or commit_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., semantic_search, commit_search). There are no when-not or alternative suggestions.

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