context_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal that the search includes archived context, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state whether the search is read-only (though implied), nor does it mention any limitations, return format, or permissions. For a search tool, the read-only nature is fairly intuitive, but more disclosure would be expected.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second adds usage guidance and a key behavioral fact. There is no redundant or vague wording, and the information is front-loaded perfectly.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat sparse. It does not describe what the response looks like, how results are ordered, or how to handle empty results. While the core search functionality is clear, the lack of return format details and filtering behavior leaves gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the 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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, including the default for limit and full-text search support for query. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool searches for context in the knowledge base, using the specific verb 'search' and identifying the resource. It also notes the scope 'across all levels including archived context,' which adds precision. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like context_get, so it misses the highest tier.

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 clear usage context: 'Use when you need detailed information about a specific topic.' It also implies a comprehensive search capability by including archived context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or name specific alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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