semantic_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains the scoring mechanism (BM25 + vector cosine similarity), retrieval modes per hit, fallback behavior, and validation against current source. This is excellent transparency.

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 concise at 5 sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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 absence of both annotations and output schema, the description covers core behavior well but could elaborate on the exact output structure and any rate limits or auth needs. It is fairly complete for a search tool.

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 low at 29%, but the description adds context for the 'explain' parameter and the retrieval_mode response field. However, it does not elaborate on 'limit', 'include_graph', 'graph_limit', or 'worktree', which remain underdocumented. The description adds moderate value beyond the schema.

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 'Search indexed source and docs.', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like commit_search or rationale_search by focusing on indexed source and docs with a blended score.

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?

The description explains when to use the tool and the meaning of the score, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions. It does mention the explain flag for detailed breakdowns, which is helpful.

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