mimry_semantic

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that search is local-only and operates over 'bounded' chunks, which is useful context. But it says nothing about whether the index must be built first, permission requirements, or ranking behavior – notable gaps for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key qualifier ('local-only') front-loaded. No wasted words, though it is arguably too terse given the documentation gaps elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the 0% parameter coverage and the absence of any annotation or usage guidance leave the definition under-specified for a search tool in a crowded sibling namespace.

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% for all three parameters (query, root, limit). The description adds no meaning to any of them – it doesn't clarify that 'query' is the semantic text, what 'root' scopes, or what 'limit' caps. For a 0%-coverage schema the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('semantic search over bounded MIMRY chunks') and adds the 'local-only' qualifier, which distinguishes it from a hypothetical remote search. However, with siblings like mimry_find, mimry_related and mimry_symbol in the namespace, the description never explains how this search differs from those, leaving the agent to guess.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. The agent cannot tell from this text whether mimry_find or mimry_related is the better choice for a given lookup.

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