failure_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions 'using FTS5,' which is an implementation detail, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what the return format is, how results are ordered, or any limitations (e.g., does it search raw text or metadata?). The absence of such disclosures leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior beyond the basic search action.

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, concise sentence: 'Search for failure experiences and solutions using FTS5.' It is appropriately short, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes meaning, making it an example of efficient writing.

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 tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too sparse to be contextually complete. It does not explain what the results will look like, how the query is interpreted (e.g., exact phrase vs. fuzzy), or when this tool is the right choice. For a search tool, the absence of return-format details and usage context leaves a significant gap, especially compared to richer descriptions for similar tools.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters: 'query' is described as 'Search query for error messages or patterns' and 'limit' as 'Maximum results.' Since the schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little parameter-specific value. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage or format; the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's function: 'Search for failure experiences and solutions using FTS5.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('failure experiences and solutions'). The mention of FTS5 adds technical specificity, and the tool name 'failure_search' plus the description distinguish it from sibling tools like failure_list, which is a list-not-search operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or the relationship to failure_list or other failure tools. No context is given about when searching is preferred over listing or other retrieval methods, so the usage context is entirely implicit.

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