vexor_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that results include source text, reducing the need for a follow-up read—a helpful behavioral detail. However, it omits many behavioral traits: possible side effects of the `no_cache` parameter (temporary in-memory index), the conditional availability of content based on `content_budget`, and the fact that `include_content` can return 'content_unavailable'. The description gives partial insight but is not comprehensive enough to fully replace annotations.

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 and immediately states the core action. Every word serves a purpose: the first sentence defines the verb+noun, the second completes the picture by listing return fields and a practical implication (reducing follow-ups). No fluff, adequately front-loaded.

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?

Despite an output schema existing (reducing the need to document returns), the description fails to provide context for the 12-parameter complexity. It does not mention the `mode`, `path`, `extensions`, `exclude_patterns`, or `no_cache` parameters that significantly alter behavior. No guidance on when to use this vs. `vexor_index`. For a tool with this many knobs and a sibling, the description is too terse to be considered complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides—it does not mention any parameters or their roles. The description earns credit only for its overall purpose, not for parameter semantics, thus meeting but not exceeding the baseline.

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 starts with 'Find files or code from a natural-language description,' a specific verb+resource pair that clearly states the tool's goal. It distinguishes from the sibling 'vexor_index' (which likely manages an index) by focusing on retrieval, not indexing. The return value summary further solidifies purpose.

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 implies the tool should be used for natural-language file searches, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention the sibling 'vexor_index' as an alternative or prerequisite, and offers no exclusions. The context is acceptable but minimal, leaving the agent to infer usage without direction.

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