telys_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: failure when the collection doesn't exist, the single-key restriction on 'where', and the on-device embedding behavior. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 detailed but well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then parameter specifics, and closes with error conditions. Every sentence adds value; it is not padded with filler. Slightly long but appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 4 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description covers return format (hits with id, score, metadata), required vs optional, filtering constraints, error scenarios, and usage context. An agent has enough to call it correctly without additional documentation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: the 'where' filter example ('scope=project:acme'), the note that MCP-created collections are partitioned by 'scope', and the default for top_k. It doesn't fully compensate for the lack of output schema, but it enhances parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb ('search') and resource ('Telys memory collection'), explains the embedding mechanism, and explicitly differentiates from telys_search_lexical. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('recall stored notes/facts/decisions before answering') and contrasts with the lexical alternative ('choose this embedding-ranked path when wording varies; choose telys_search_lexical when exact terms and BM25 scoring matter'). It also notes required vs optional parameters and error conditions.

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