mcp_engram_goal_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function and does not mention side effects, rate limits, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only. This lack of transparency hinders safe usage.

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 very concise: two sentences that front-load the action and purpose. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple with no output schema, so the description should at least outline return format. It says 'basic metadata' which is vague. Missing details on pagination, ordering, or how status filter works. Adequate but could be more informative.

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 description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely echoes that search is by text or status. No extra details on parameter formats or constraints.

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 searches for goals by statement text or status, returns matching goals with basic metadata, and specifies when it's useful (finding goals without exact IDs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mcp_engram_goal_list.

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 context for when to use the tool ('when the agent wants to find existing goals without knowing exact IDs'). However, it does not explicitly exclude situations or mention alternatives, which could be helpful given the many sibling goal tools.

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