Search past decision traces and learned patterns by context similarity to find proven tactics, heuristics, and contingency plans for current reasoning tasks.
Search learned heuristic patterns, tactics, and past decision traces by context similarity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| project | No | ||
| context_tags | No | ||
| pattern_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' signals a read-only intent with no destructive effects, and 'by context similarity' describes the matching behavior. However, it does not state what the response contains, whether limits or pagination apply, or any operational constraints.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and it immediately states the core operation. It is concise and well structured, even though its brevity limits completeness.
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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, one line of purpose is insufficient. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns, how to configure the search modes and filters, or what default behavior to expect. The description is adequate as a high-level summary but incomplete for reliable invocation.
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, but it only introduces the general idea of 'context similarity'. It doesn't explain the three action values, limit, project filtering, context_tags, or pattern_type, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning from names and enums alone.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and names concrete resources: learned heuristic patterns, tactics, and past decision traces. The added mechanism 'by context similarity' makes the intent clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from get_decision_trace, which could also return decision traces.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives such as get_decision_trace or manage_reasoning_db are mentioned. The description implies a context-similarity search use case but leaves the decision of which sibling to choose to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.