search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the search spans multiple sources and includes recent prompts, and it implies a read-only operation. However, it does not describe the output shape, result ordering, or whether any side effects occur.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is packed into a compact, readable example.

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 cross-source search tool with no output schema, the description clearly defines what is searchable and when to use it. However, it omits any description of the return format and does not explain limit behavior, leaving the agent to discover those details by invoking the tool.

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 coverage is 67% and the description enriches the sources enum by mapping memories, notebooks, conversations, and queries to 'Warp memories, notebooks/plans, conversation summaries, and recent user prompts to Oz'. It does not clarify the limit parameter beyond its schema default, so the added value is moderate but not exceptional.

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 distinct resources: Warp memories, notebooks/plans, conversation summaries, and recent user prompts to Oz. It also gives concrete example queries, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinguishing it from the single-source sibling list/get tools.

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 clear usage context by saying it is the 'best first tool' for questions like 'what did Oz work on' and 'find the Warp plan'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for targeted lookups, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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