semantic_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 discloses that it calculates embeddings and searches by distance, implying it is computationally heavier than simple search, but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or limits. Adequate but could be more explicit about performance or data scope.

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?

Three sentences, each contributing essential information: the action, the mechanism, and the output. No wasted words, front-loaded with 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fairly covers what the tool does, how it works, and what it returns. Minor gaps like performance implications but sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions query and return fields. No parameter-specific details like format or constraints.

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 it performs semantic search on artifact sections, calculates embeddings, and returns specific fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_project_artifacts (likely keyword-based) and search_code_skeletons (code-specific).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The '[ARTIFACT TOOLS]' prefix provides minimal context, but it does not explain when to prefer semantic search over keyword search or other search tools.

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