search_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search', implying a read operation, but does not state whether it is read-only, what the result format is, whether it returns matches or just identifiers, or if it has side effects like building an index. For a search tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource. While under-specified, it is efficiently written and easy to scan.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine the semantics of 'index_dir', the expected return shape, error behavior, or performance implications. It is inadequate for a tool that likely involves file system access or indexing.

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 adds no parameter-level detail. It does not explain what 'query' should contain (beyond 'by text', which is minimal), nor what 'index_dir' refers to (likely a directory path, but unstated). With two parameters and zero coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 clear verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('semantic media index'), and qualifies it with 'by text', which maps to the query parameter. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, none of which are search-focused, so an agent can infer its purpose without opening the schema.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred contexts, exclusions, or related tools such as 'read' or 'qc' that might also access media content. An agent is left to infer that search is appropriate for text-based lookups, but no explicit direction is provided.

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