Search every project brain on this machine

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses ranking is lexical, semantic only when an optional local model is installed, degrades cleanly without errors, explains time-travel semantics for as_of, and clarifies registry population.

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 dense but efficient, with the core scope and usage front-loaded. It is one long sentence with many embedded caveats, but every clause conveys necessary constraint information and no filler exists.

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 complexity, the description covers almost all critical call guidance: ranking, semantic fallback, error behavior, as_of semantics, and registry prerequisites. The only notable gap is the absence of any return-value or result-shape description, though no output schema exists to offset this.

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is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic detail: it explains that as_of treats superseded cards as live if current at that date and clarifies the scope of query across all registered project brains. This goes beyond the schema's simple field 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?

States a specific verb and resource: cross-project memory search across every registered brain.klypix. It explicitly contrasts with the current vault and clearly differentiates from sibling search tools like search_canvases.

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?

Provides a clear usage context: 'Use when the answer may live in ANOTHER project's decisions.' It also describes a key limitation (projects absent from the registry are unreachable), which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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