Search

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses the hybrid retrieval method, the JSON return format, and the cite/sources components, which is helpful. However, it omits any side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or behavior on empty results. It gives meaningful but not exhaustive disclosure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core action and resource. It includes meaningful extra details (hybrid FTS5 + KNN, JSON results, cite/sources, CLI equivalence) without redundancy. Every clause adds information.

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?

Although the description captures the core purpose and output shape, it is incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with all parameters. The presence of an output schema removes some need to describe returns, but the zero parameter coverage and lack of usage guidance leave significant gaps, especially for 'max_distance' and 'with_embeddings'.

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 explanation for any of the five parameters. It does not define how 'query', 'limit', 'project', 'max_distance', or 'with_embeddings' behave or interact. The agent is left to infer semantics purely from opaque parameter names, with no compensatory description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Searches') with a clear resource ('lessons') and adds technical precision ('hybrid FTS5 + KNN') and output details (JSON with cite `project/file:line` and sources). It inherently distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'solutions' by targeting lessons, so the agent can tell them apart at a glance.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer 'search' over 'solutions' or any other sibling, and it offers no exclusionary conditions. Usage context is only implied by the word 'Searches'.

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