search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists searchable domains but omits any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, harmful side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or result format. The agent has no insight into safety or behavioral constraints.

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 short (one line) and front-loads the action 'Search', which is good. However, it is essentially a list of items separated by commas, which is clunky. No structural elements like bullet points or sections. Every word earns its place, but the format is suboptimal for rapid scanning.

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?

Given 7 parameters (1 required) and no output schema details in the description, the tool is inadequately documented. The description fails to explain how queries work, what results look like, or how parameters affect search. An output schema exists but is not referenced; the agent must infer semantics from names alone.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. Required parameter 'query' is unexplained (type, expected content). Optional parameters like 'scope', 'l', 'n', 'ref', 'since', 'tk' are not mentioned at all. The agent must rely solely on parameter names and types, which are minimal (e.g., 'scope' is a string with no enum, 'l' integer default 1 without explanation).

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 states 'Search knowledge, tasks, observations, entities, memory_layers, session, timeline, hf.' which clearly identifies the tool as a search across multiple resources. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'task' or 'hf', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this unified search vs. specific domain 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?

No usage guidelines provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sibling tools like 'task' for task-specific ops or 'hf' for HF-related queries). No context on prerequisites or situations where search is appropriate.

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