context_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that FTS5 does not stem and suggests adding a prefix wildcard, which is a helpful behavioral trait. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention authorization needs, but for a search tool the read-only nature is implied and the tip adds value.

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 concise: two sentences, no redundant words. It front-loads the purpose and adds a useful usage note. Every sentence 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?

The tool has an output schema (unknown content) and moderate complexity. The description covers the main purpose and a behavioral nuance, but fails to explain the segment parameter, which is a notable gap. It is mostly complete but missing a key detail.

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 provides a relevant tip about the query parameter (stemming/wildcards), but does not mention the segment parameter at all. For a 2-parameter tool, this is insufficient: one parameter is partially explained, the other is ignored.

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 it is a full-text search over project history (decisions/changes/questions/notes) to recover past context. The verb 'search' and resource 'project history' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like context_log or context_pull, though the function is distinct.

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 for recovering past context and provides a tip about FTS5 stemming and wildcards. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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