Semantic Search

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions 'relevance scoring' but omits other behavioral traits such as read-only status, authentication requirements, query handling (e.g., empty query), or result ordering details. The transparency is minimal.

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 sentence that front-loads the key purpose and scope. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool has no output schema, the description should explain what the output includes (e.g., results from each source, scores). It lacks this. Additionally, with many sibling tools, more guidance on when to choose this over specific searches would improve completeness.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (query and limit). The description adds 'intelligent cross-source search' and 'relevance scoring' context but does not enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 performs intelligent cross-source search across workshops, scenarios, discussions, and issues using relevance scoring. It distinctly separates from sibling tools like alg-search-specialists (specialists only) and alg-search-discussions (discussions only) by emphasizing multiple sources.

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 when a cross-source search is needed ('cross-source search'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Given the sibling tools for specific sources, the context is implicit but not explicit.

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