astra_semantic_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that this is a read-only semantic lookup over an already-indexed corpus, but it does not disclose ranking behavior, behavior for unindexed paths, or any rate/access constraints.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and a clear action-resource structure. It is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing parameter and usage context, so it is not a perfect score.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape is partially covered, but the description omits essential operational context: what path means, whether the repository must already be indexed, and how this tool relates to astra_index_repo. For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, this is a meaningful gap.

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 0%, and the description only partially characterizes the query parameter as a 'conceptual intent.' It does not explain what 'path' refers to or how 'limit' affects results, leaving most parameter semantics to the agent to infer.

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'), a resource ('indexed code chunks'), and a method ('by conceptual intent'), making the tool's semantic retrieval purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like astra_hybrid_context or astra_get_callers, so it stops short of a top score.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as astra_hybrid_context or astra_get_callers. The phrase 'by conceptual intent' hints at semantic queries, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite such as running astra_index_repo first.

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