palinode_search

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

The description adds significant value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) by explaining the semantic similarity ranking, return of excerpts, and implicit non-destructive nature. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states purpose and scope, second describes output. No fluff, every word earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return of excerpts ranked by similarity. Could optionally mention the 'full' parameter effect, but schema covers it. Overall sufficient for a search tool with 12 parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The main description does not add parameter details beyond listing categories, but the schema descriptions are thorough. No additional semantic clarity is needed from the description.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'Palinode memory', and specifies the scope 'people, projects, decisions, insights, or research'. It also describes the output as 'most relevant memory file excerpts ranked by semantic similarity', which distinguishes it from list or read tools amongst siblings.

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 implies usage for retrieving relevant context from memory, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like palinode_list or palinode_read. However, the context of 'searching' is clear and distinct from other sibling tools.

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