search_branch_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context ('semantic search', 'across projects') but does not disclose the non-destructive nature, result format, or any edge-case behavior. It is adequate for a read-oriented search tool, but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the action and purpose, earning full marks for conciseness and structure.

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?

The description clarifies the tool's purpose and content domain, but with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain what results look like or mention filtering/sorting options (though schema handles those). It is reasonably complete for a search tool but leaves some context gaps.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, merely echoing the semantic search and project scope concepts. Thus it does not elevate beyond baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('branch notes across projects'), and the semantic search qualifier distinguishes it from simpler listing tools like list_all_branch_notes. It also provides a sense of content ('development insights, problem-solving journeys, decision contexts'), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use the tool (when seeking insights from branch notes) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like comprehensive_knowledge_search, nor does it mention any exclusions. The usage context is clear enough, but explicit alternatives are missing.

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