search_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key degradation behavior: semantic: false in the result means the embedding arm was down and only keyword recall applied. That's exactly the sort of operational caveat an agent needs. It stops short of covering permissions or pagination, but is unusually transparent about failure modes.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, then the semantic capability, then the degradation caveat. Efficient and well-ordered; the parenthetical citation is minor clutter but not wasteful.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly focuses on scope and the semantic degradation flag. It covers the essential failure mode and search semantics. The main gap is undefined limit behavior, but coverage is otherwise strong for a search tool.

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%, so the schema documents neither query nor limit beyond their types and default. The description implies the query supports natural-language semantic matching, adding some meaning, but says nothing about the limit parameter or result count behavior. Baseline for a 2-param tool where the description partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb (hybrid keyword + semantic search) and a precise resource (everything readable in the active mesh's chat: feed, entity threads, channels, DMs). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like read_channel or read_thread, which read specific contexts rather than searching across all of them.

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?

Establishes clear context (search across all readable chat in the active mesh) and informs the agent that meaning-based queries work without exact keywords. It doesn't explicitly name when to use a sibling like read_channel instead, but the scope is unambiguous enough for selection.

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