grove_search

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

Beyond annotations already marking the tool read-only, the description adds the permission requirement 'Requires grove_read' and details matching behavior: query is a 'case-insensitive substring match.' This is behavioral context not present in the schema or annotations. It does not disclose pagination or default channel scope, but the output schema and read-only annotation reduce the burden.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose and prerequisite are in the first sentence, and the parameter details follow in a clean list. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or tautology.

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?

The description covers the core behavior and two of three parameters, and the output schema plus read-only annotations handle return values and safety. It omits what app_id does and what the default search scope is when channel_name is not given, which are relevant for correct invocation. Given the tool's relative simplicity, the gap is moderate but not crippling.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains query as a case-insensitive substring and channel_name as an optional restriction, which adds real semantics. However, app_id is left unexplained in both description and schema, leaving one of the three parameters ambiguous.

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 and resource: 'Search Grove messages by content.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like grove_get_history or grove_list_channels, which cover different retrieval modes. The prerequisite 'Requires grove_read' adds context without obscuring the core purpose.

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 usage context is implicit: use when searching messages by content. The description names no alternatives or exclusion conditions, and the only condition provided is the prerequisite 'Requires grove_read,' which is a permission dependency rather than a comparison with sibling tools. An agent must infer when to choose this over grove_get_history or knowledge_search.

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