search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses hybrid mode behavior (vector + keyword merged with RRF) and historical-version semantics, but omits read-only status, permissions, rate limits, and result-size behavior.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then mode behavior, then filtering and versioning. Every sentence adds useful information; the only minor weakness is the slightly awkward line break in the mode sentence.

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?

With seven parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that covers return values, the description explains the complex parts (modes, filters, versioning) but omits 'k' semantics and safety/scope details. It is adequate but has clear 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to mode values, kind values ('note' or 'chunk'), tag/project filtering, and version semantics, but leaves 'k' and exact query behavior undocumented.

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 ('Search') and resources ('notes and document chunks'), and adds the mode dimension. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'get' tool, but the retrieval scope is clear.

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?

It explains how to filter and how to search historical versions ('Pass version... see list_versions'), but gives no guidance on when to use this search tool versus 'get', nor any explicit when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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