search_ideas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the scoring mechanism (exact match > substring > per-token matches), which is helpful. It implies read-only operation, but could explicitly state that it does not modify data.

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 sentences long with no superfluous words. The first sentence covers functionality and scoring, the second provides use cases. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It lacks details about the return format (e.g., list of node IDs or full node objects), which would be helpful for an agent. However, the essential information for selection and invocation is present.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single query parameter, the description adds value by explaining how the query is matched, beyond the schema's 'partial words and phrases both work'. This additional context justifies a score above baseline 3.

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 tool searches the mindmap for nodes matching a query string, and details the scoring hierarchy. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like export or add operations by being the only search tool.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool to find a node ID before updating/deleting or to surface related ideas, providing clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use it, but given no sibling search tool exists, that's acceptable.

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