semantic_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses defaults (limit=10, threshold=0.0), the meaning of empty source_types, and the return structure, providing strong behavioral context.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence contributes. No fluff or redundancy.

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 covers purpose, all parameters with defaults, and return format. Without an output schema, the return details are necessary and provided. Minor gap: no mention of search scope or project context, but this is sufficient for a simple search 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?

The schema descriptions are tautological ('limit parameter', etc.), while the tool description gives meaningful semantics: query is a natural language string, limit controls result count, source_types supports comma-separated values, and threshold sets similarity floor.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with clear resources ('items, decisions, and updates') and method ('by semantic similarity'), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'search' tool.

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 for semantic similarity searches but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'search' or 'find_similar', nor does it provide exclusions.

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