search_experience

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Search' implies a read-only operation, and 'by description similarity' adds a useful behavioral detail about how matching works. However, it does not explicitly disclose side effects, result ordering, or any limitations.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence conveys the essential purpose without redundancy. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and every word adds value.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It names the target data and search semantics, but omits when-to-use context and any behavioral caveats, so an agent has enough to invoke it but not to choose it confidently among siblings.

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 description must compensate. It does clarify that 'query' is matched against description similarity, but it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter beyond the schema's default value, leaving its meaning and constraints implicit.

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 identifies the verb ('Search'), the resource ('past task experiences'), and the matching method ('by description similarity'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_insights or explain_node, which focus on broader analysis or explanation rather than retrieval.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as project_insights or choose_path. It does not state prerequisite conditions, exclusions, or situations where another sibling would be more appropriate.

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