context_search

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

The description discloses that FTS5 does not stem, which is a behavioral trait. However, without annotations, it does not explicitly confirm read-only nature, required permissions, or other side effects. The description carries the full burden but adds only basic behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a concise usage tip. No filler or redundant information.

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 covers the main use case and provides a behavioral note, but omits explanation of the 'segment' parameter, potential errors, or output specifics. Since an output schema exists, some return information may be covered there, but the description alone is moderately incomplete.

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%, and the description only elaborates on the 'query' parameter with a usage tip. The 'segment' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its meaning unclear despite the low coverage.

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 performs full-text search on the project's history to recover past context, with specific resources (decisions/changes/questions/notes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like context_handoff or context_resolve which handle different operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description only offers a search tip about wildcards but does not compare to alternatives or state prerequisites.

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