fidelis_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fast' and 'vector-only', which conveys performance and method, but it does not state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor any other side effects, authentication needs, or limitations. For a query tool this is a notable omission.

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 sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the most critical limitation ('no filter'). Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and scope. However, given the absence of annotations, it fails to mention that the operation is safe/read-only, and it does not describe the return format. These gaps make it less complete than it could be.

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% — both 'limit' and 'query' have basic descriptions. The description adds context about the overall query behavior ('vector-only', 'no filter') but does not provide additional per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters.

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 verb (query) and a resource (fidelis memories), and adds specific qualifiers ('vector-only', 'no filter') that distinguish it from a filtered query. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the qualifiers provide enough differentiation for an agent to guess it is a basic, unfiltered search variant.

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 usage when no filter is needed ('no filter'), which gives a condition, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer siblings like fidelis_recall or fidelis_orient. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so an agent must infer that filtered or more advanced queries belong elsewhere.

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