search_messages

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the use of SQL LIKE fuzzy matching and the absence of a FTS5 index, which are important behavioral traits. However, it lacks details about result sorting, pagination, or return structure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently conveys essential details without redundancy.

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 description covers the main functionality and filtering, but given no output schema, it omits information about return values (e.g., fields returned, sorting). The limit parameter is explained in schema but not in description. It is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond schema by explaining the search algorithm (LIKE) and performance limitation (no index). This helps the agent understand behavior not captured in parameter descriptions.

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 explicitly states '全文搜索消息内容' (full-text search of message content), providing a clear verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like search_memories and search_strategies by targeting messages.

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 usage for searching messages with optional agent ID filtering and mentions the matching method, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide any exclusions. Context signals show no other message search tool, so the guidance is implicit.

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