find

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait: it is a local search (no external embedding API calls), which indicates performance and privacy characteristics. It also mentions the retrieval methods (BM25, dense, RRF), giving insight into how results are ranked. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the resource and method. It contains no redundant filler and gets straight to the point. 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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the context provided is insufficient. The description does not explain the meaning of tags, kinds, time-as-of semantics, limits, or response formats. An agent would be guessing about how to use these options correctly. The description is far too sparse for a tool of this complexity.

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 for explaining parameters. It implicitly connects 'mode' to the three search methods (lexical, semantic, hybrid) but does not explicitly name the mode parameter or explain any of the other seven parameters (tag, kind, as_of, limit, max_chars, response_format). The description only addresses the core query resource, leaving the rest of the parameters unexplained.

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's function: searching title, alias, summary, and evidence text via BM25, dense, or RRF. It also explicitly notes that it does not call external embedding APIs, which helps distinguish it from potential alternatives. The verb 'search' and the listed resources make the purpose 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 implies that this is the search tool among the siblings (e.g., 'get', 'query', 'trace'), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others, nor does it mention when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations. The user must infer that this is the primary search mechanism.

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