search_thoughts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'search for thoughts'. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as default search mode (names vs content), result ranking, or whether it requires text indexing. The schema parameters (e.g., onlySearchThoughtNames) are not mentioned in the description.

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, succinct sentence with no wasted words. However, it is arguably too brief given the tool's complexity; a bit more detail would improve clarity without harming conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify return format (e.g., list of thought IDs, objects with content). It fails to specify what the search results contain or how to interpret them, leaving a significant gap for the agent.

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 description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain how queryText is used or the purpose of brainId, but the schema descriptions are sufficient.

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' and resource 'thoughts in a brain', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_thought (single retrieval) or get_thought_graph (graph traversal). However, it lacks specificity about the scope (e.g., content vs. names) and does not differentiate from potential search variants.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_thought for by-ID lookup, get_modifications for recent changes). The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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