search_contexts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'semantic search' but doesn't explain how this differs from keyword search, what algorithm is used, or performance characteristics. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'relevant information' means in the return. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for a search tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (semantic search across contexts with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'contexts' are, how results are ranked, the format of returned information, or error cases. For a tool with moderate complexity and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the search is 'semantic' (which relates to the 'query' parameter). It doesn't clarify interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'category' and 'tags' combine) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('perform semantic search') and resource ('across contexts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'list_contexts' (which likely returns all contexts without search) and 'get_context' (which retrieves a specific context). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'contexts' are in this system, which slightly reduces specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when semantic search is preferable to filtering with 'list_contexts' or using other siblings like 'plan_from_contexts'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to help the agent choose appropriately among the 10 sibling tools.

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