Search Rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well. It discloses return fields (title, URL, description, relevance score), a critical operational dependency (Qdrant must be running and indexed), and fallback behavior to text search. It doesn't mention error handling or what happens if both search methods fail.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by return format, prerequisite, and fallback behavior. No filler or repetition.

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, so return values needn't be fully detailed, yet the description still usefully summarizes return fields. It covers prerequisites and fallback behavior, which are critical operational details not covered by schema or annotations. The main omission is guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings.

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 100%, so both parameters (query, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Semantic search across all SSW Rules'. This distinguishes it from retrieval siblings like get_rule (singular retrieval) and get_recent_rules (time-based filtering). It doesn't explicitly name siblings, but the scope of 'all SSW Rules' is clear enough to differentiate.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need to search rules by query. The description mentions the Qdrant dependency and fallback behavior, which are operational prerequisites rather than usage guidance. There's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use vs alternatives like get_recent_rules or list_categories.

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