search_semantic

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosure. It only mentions a dependency (@xenova/transformers) and implies a read operation, but does not explain return format, side effects, or any limitations.

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 single-sentence description is technically concise, but it provides minimal substance. It earns its place only for the dependency note, yet lacks the detail a tool description should offer.

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 is severely incomplete: no mention of the search target, result behavior, or any prerequisites beyond the library. Without annotations or an output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to use safely.

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 covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (query, limit, threshold), so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline high coverage warrants a 3.

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 'Semantic similarity search' essentially restates the tool name without specifying what data is searched. It lacks a clear resource or scope, making it hard to distinguish from siblings like memory_search or search_temporal.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only mentions a library dependency, not the appropriate use case or selection criteria among the many search-like tools.

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