veto_semantic_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds 'local vector index' context but does not elaborate on behavior beyond search. No contradiction with annotations.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and an example. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, there is no output schema in the provided information, and the description does not hint at the output format (e.g., file paths, code snippets). A natural-language search tool should describe what the agent receives in return.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (query, project_dir, agent_response) are described in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic detail per parameter; it only gives a general purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Local vector index codebase search' that answers natural-language queries over code, with an illustrative example ('where is user authentication handled?'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools, none of which offer semantic search.

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 defines what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like veto_explain or veto_docs_fetch. The implied usage is for natural-language code search, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or what limits exist.

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