Search clips & transcriptions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it satisfies most of it: return shape (clips[] and transcriptions[] with match snippets), default ordering, top-N behavior, the single-source constraint on non-relevance sorts, cursor paging, and FTS5 query semantics. It stops short of stating that the operation is read-only/side-effect free or discussing result limits or performance, which keeps it under 5.

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?

Four sentences, each doing distinct work: what it searches, when to use it with examples, what it returns, and how to page. The paging constraint is front-loaded with the default-sort behavior instead of buried at the end.

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 an 18-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential shape of results, the top-level meta.next_cursor, and the sort/paging contract. Remaining gaps for a complex tool are the multiple source values (recordings, screenshots OCR) and how relevance scores behave, which the schema mentions only in passing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the interaction between sort, source, and cursor for paging, and by spelling out that plain words get prefix-matched while FTS5 syntax is honored. It does not add much for the many filter parameters (category, engine, origin, content_type), which the schema already documents well.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource statement: FTS5 full-text search across copied clips and voice transcriptions on this Mac. The two concrete examples ('the URL I copied from Slack', 'what I dictated about the budget') make the retrieval intent unambiguous and separate it from sibling tools like eve_recent or eve_get that retrieve without a query.

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 says explicitly when to use this tool (locating a specific item by remembered words) and how to switch modes, contrasting default relevance/top-N against chronological paging with sort=recency/created plus a single source and cursor. That is a clear use-case/alternative split rather than an implied one.

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