Retrieve

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful behavior: results are ranked, references are 'opaque,' line citations are returned for documents, and the tool has no embeddings or persistent index. This goes well beyond the structured hints and gives an agent a realistic picture of the operation's behavior.

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?

Two sentences tightly pack the core operation, the output shape, and a key non-behavior ('No embeddings or persistent index'). The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema and only one required parameter, the description is enough to make a basic call. However, it lacks explicit alternative routing and leaves glob/paths semantics unexplained, so an agent may not fully understand scoping options or when to prefer this over sibling tools.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only clarifies the query concept ('multi-word keyword relevance') and says nothing about glob, paths, max_chars, or max_results. Some parameters have self-descriptive names, but the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Rank redacted passages by multi-word keyword relevance.' It also clarifies output ('opaque references and line citations') and contrasts itself with embedding/index-based approaches. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from sibling redctx_search, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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 phrase 'by multi-word keyword relevance' and 'No embeddings or persistent index' imply this is the tool for keyword-style retrieval rather than semantic/vector search. However, it never names an alternative or gives explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is implied but not stated.

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