semantic_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It mentions vector embeddings and semantic similarity but does not detail output format, pagination, or whether it searches all conversations. It provides core insight but lacks depth on results and 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 description is three sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by capability and comparison. No fluff or redundancy. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing parameter explanations and behavioral specifics, which would improve completeness.

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?

For a simple search tool, the description covers basic purpose and differentiation. However, with no annotation support and 0% schema description coverage, it fails to explain parameters or provide sufficient behavioral context. The existence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description could be more informative.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the query type or limit's purpose (e.g., maximum results). It adds no meaning beyond what parameter names imply, leaving the agent to infer usage. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema 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 states it searches conversations using semantic similarity, finds conceptually similar messages, and contrasts with keyword search. It clearly identifies the verb (search), resource (conversations), and method (semantic similarity), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_conversations.

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 explains that the tool is more powerful than keyword search for finding related ideas, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implied contrast. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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