lookup

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it is 'never an injection surface - nothing here reaches you unprompted', caps replies at 25 lines, reports how many more matches exist, and clarifies the exact response shapes (lines, catalogue, or 'no matches').

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?

Dense but efficient: every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, workflow, invocation modes, safety, and return behavior. It is front-loaded with the core distinction and the remember/revise guidance before the mechanical details.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully specifies return values and limits. It covers all four parameter combinations, the read-only safety profile, and the relationship to remember/revise in the sibling toolset. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining cross-parameter behavior the schema does not fully convey: key ignores query and scope, scope alone opens a scope, query alone searches everywhere, and no arguments returns the catalogue of scopes.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'searches THOR's memory', and immediately distinguishes its scope from any current-project-limited alternative: 'never scoped to only the current project.' It also names sibling tools like remember and revise, making it clear which tool this is not.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to call it: 'Call this before remember, so an existing near-duplicate becomes a revise instead.' It also enumerates all invocation modes (no args, scope, query, key), which is effectively a usage decision table.

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