search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden — and it excels. It discloses the withholding behavior (you get the holder, not the answer), provenance labeling ("Every result names where it came from"), the audit side effect of override ("recorded in the journal against your name"), and the access-scoping behavior of on_behalf_of ("They see only the folders they were actually shared"). These are exactly the non-obvious behavioral traits an agent needs to know.

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 three paragraphs but front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each paragraph has a distinct job: scope, withholding/override policy, and teammate parameter. It is slightly long, but every sentence carries substantive information and none is filler.

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 an output schema exists (covering return values), the description covers the tricky semantics well: search scope, source attribution, contention handling, override auditing, and teammate scoping. The main remaining gap is the undocumented limit parameter and the absence of any guidance about result ordering or what happens on empty results — minor given the overall richness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for override (purpose + journaling side effect) and on_behalf_of (teammate context + visibility scoping), which are the two non-obvious parameters. Query is only implied by the tool name and opening sentence, and limit — its default, purpose, or effect on result volume — is never mentioned. Partial compensation for a 4-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Search this machine's memory of the repo: past agent sessions, commits and code structure." The scope is concrete and the added note that every result names its source further clarifies behavior. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings 'about' and 'remember', so differentiation must be inferred rather than stated.

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 gives clear conditional guidance: when another agent holds claimed work, the agent should "Ask them, or pick up something else," and override is only for when the agent "genuinely must have it." It also explains when on_behalf_of applies (working for a teammate). It does not explicitly state when to prefer the sibling tools 'about' or 'remember', leaving that routing implicit.

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