Search Staged Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds that the tool is private and returns specific fields, which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. There is no contradiction, and the description enriches understanding of the search scope.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Search private Context Bridge staging records') and includes only necessary detail about return values. Every word earns its place.

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 filtered search tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and return structure. It complements the well-documented schema by explaining what is returned, making the tool understandable in context.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the schema already fully explains all four parameters (limit, query, offset, response_format). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'private Context Bridge staging records', and specifies the returned fields (chat IDs, titles, summaries, draft paths). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stage_chat or summarize_thread, which create or process context.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for searching staged records and is read-only, providing context that differentiates it from sibling tools that create or modify data. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives, so it falls short of a full explicit exclusion.

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