Search the archive

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds context about return format: 'Returns matching excerpts with the workspace page link where one was recorded.' This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies output behavior.

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 three short sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: purpose, use cases, and return value. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

With a simple two-parameter tool, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and return format. It lacks mention of pagination or limit behavior, but the output schema likely covers those details. The description is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'query' implicitly via full-text search but does not explicitly define the query parameter or explain the 'limit' parameter. The description adds little meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 a specific action: 'Full-text search across everything archived — transcripts and article bodies, not just titles.' This distinguishes it from other archive tools by emphasizing full-text content and provides a precise resource and scope.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: 'Use this to answer questions about what the user has already saved, or to find the source of a half-remembered idea.' It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear and effectively guides when to apply it.

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