project_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that FTS5 does not stem and advises on prefix wildcards, providing insight into search behavior. However, it does not mention read-only nature, error handling, or performance, so it is only moderately transparent.

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: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second adds essential technical guidance. It is front-loaded, no redundant words, and every sentence adds value.

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 has 2 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key technical detail. However, it lacks information on output expectations, error cases, or full parameter semantics, making it moderately complete but with noticeable 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%, yet the description only implicitly defines parameters: 'query' as the search topic and 'project' as the target project. It offers a hint about query format (wildcard) but lacks detail on project format (name/ID) or any constraints, insufficiently compensating for the schema gap.

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 'another project's history', and the purpose of reusing an approach. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'context_search' by focusing on cross-project reuse, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 provides a clear use case (reusing an approach from another project instead of starting from scratch) and a detailed technical hint about wildcard usage for FTS5. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, though the context is strong.

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