hypermnesic_search

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

Consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, the description confirms read-only access and details the fusion mechanism, degradation to lexical-only without embeddings, and the returned fields. No contradictions.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance and technical detail. No wasted 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?

Given the complexity of hybrid search, the description fully covers the algorithm, fallback, output structure, and parameter defaults. The presence of an output schema further reduces the burden, making this complete.

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?

Input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (query and k). The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what the schema states, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as a hybrid search over a read-only index, specifying the lexical+dense approach and the reciprocal-rank fusion method. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `search` tool by noting functional identity but namespaced alias.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to prefer `search` and only use this alias when the client requires a prefixed name. This is ideal guidance on when and when not to invoke the tool.

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