dibs_lesson_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool 'Returns ranked matches with snippets,' giving some insight into output behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any potential side effects, error conditions, or limitations beyond the schema. The verb 'search' implies non-mutating behavior, but this is not explicit, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes only relevant details. It is concise with zero wasted words, fully earnestly placed, and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters, no output schema), and the description covers its purpose, when to use it, and the general return format. It does not explain the exact structure of 'snippets' or the ranking criteria, but the essential information is present. The lack of an output schema means the description's 'ranked matches with snippets' is sufficient, but could be more specific, so a 4 is warranted.

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%: both 'query' and 'limit' have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('lessons recorded by previous agents') and indicates the intended scope ('before working in unfamiliar territory'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dibs_lesson_add, which adds lessons, and other dibs tools that manage status or notes.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'before working in unfamiliar territory.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar tasks, so it falls short of the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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