similar_patterns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavioral details—'Query embedded server-side' and 'returns cited matches'—but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The word 'search' implies a safe read, but the absence of annotations leaves this under-specified.

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 sentence with a clear lead clause and supplementary clauses separated by an em dash. It is tightly written with no filler, and each segment adds meaningful information.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves critical call details missing. The meaning of 'k' is unstated, the return format is vague ('cited matches' only), and the relationship to keyword-search siblings is only implied. The core use case is clear, but an agent cannot fully infer how to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions that the query is embedded server-side, implying query_text's role, but it never explicitly defines query_text or k. The integer parameter k (likely a top-k count) is completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess its purpose.

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 purpose: semantic (meaning-based) search over log patterns. It explicitly distinguishes itself from keyword-based search with 'even when they share no keywords,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like fts_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 gives clear context that this tool is for semantic, not keyword, matching and notes the query is embedded server-side. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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