agy_brain_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it partially meets it by disclosing the retrieval mechanism (sanitized FTS5 BM25 ranking), implying relevance-ordered results. However, it omits important behavior: whether it is strictly read-only, whether results are paginated, and critically whether the index needs syncing beforehand via the sibling sync tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is efficient. It is arguably too terse for a tool with four parameters and zero annotations, and 'sanitized FTS5 BM25' is implementation jargon that adds little for an agent.

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?

No annotations and no output schema means the description must carry behavioral and return-value context, and it does not. It says nothing about result shape, ordering guarantees, pagination, index freshness prerequisites, or what 'sanitized' means, which is a real gap for a 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (query, limit, step_type, include_artifacts) are already documented with defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (Search) and a specific resource (indexed Antigravity brain conversations and artifacts), which does distinguish it from the sync/lineage/digest/health siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so an agent infers rather than reads the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. The description never says, for example, whether the index must first be refreshed by agy_brain_sync or how this differs from agy_brain_session_digest, leaving the agent to guess.

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