rationale_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'search cached...' without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or what 'cached' implies for freshness. Minimal disclosure.

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 concise sentence with no filler. Perfectly efficient for the stated purpose.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely brief. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or how to use parameters like include_graph, graph_limit, or explain. The tool is underdescribed for its complexity.

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 low (29%), and the description adds no parameter information whatsoever. Critical parameters like query, limit, include, worktree, and explain are not explained in the description, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's sparse 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 states the tool searches cached rationale snippets by keyword and specifies the type of content (review comments, issue/change-request discussion). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like semantic_search or papertrail_issue_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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description only states the basic functionality.

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