search_journal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the hybrid retrieval algorithm (BM25 + vector), the chunking strategy (heading-chunked), and the return format (ranked hits with file#heading citations), which effectively communicates read-only behavior and result structure. It omits details like pagination or authentication, but for a search tool the core behavior is transparent.

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 composed of two concise, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core mechanism and resource are front-loaded, followed by the output format, making every word useful.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects needed to invoke it correctly: the search scope, the retrieval method, and the return format. It does not describe the exact structure of a hit beyond file#heading citations, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 50%: 'query' has a description and 'k' has default/min/max but no description. The tool description adds no explicit parameter-level guidance; however, 'Returns ranked hits' combined with k's default of 8 implies k controls result count. The description only marginally compensates for the missing k description.

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 a specific verb ('search'), a specific resource ('team markdown journals'), and the method ('Hybrid BM25 + vector semantic search'), while also noting the heading-chunked indexing and citation-style output. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, especially search_regex, by indicating semantic rather than regex-based search.

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/fuzzy search over journals and contrasts with the existence of search_regex, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no 'use search_regex for regex patterns' or similar guidance, leaving the decision to inference.

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