semantic_search_project_tool

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

The description is transparent about the tool's status (deprecated alias) but does not disclose the underlying behavior of the semantic search operation it delegates to. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and only partially meets it.

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?

A single, short sentence with zero wasted words. The key facts (deprecated, alias, target tool) are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 deprecated alias, the description adequately communicates the replacement relationship, which is the most critical context. However, it omits parameter semantics and the actual function being aliased, leaving gaps for an agent that does not already know what semantic_search_project does.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about limit, query, or project_id. The alias reference implies parameter parity with semantic_search_project, but that is an inference, not explicit guidance.

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 tool is a deprecated alias and names the canonical tool it points to, which gives it a clear purpose as a backward-compatibility shim. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing semantic_search_project as the real implementation.

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 word 'deprecated' strongly implies an agent should prefer the canonical semantic_search_project tool instead, but the description does not explicitly say 'use X instead.' Guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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