Query personal context

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context by mentioning 'explicit scopes' and 'traceable source excerpts', which describe scoping behavior and result traceability. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action ('Search') and follows with the target and output. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose without wasted phrasing.

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 no output schema and only minimal parameter descriptions, the description provides a high-level view of the tool but lacks detailed behavioral information such as result format, handling of missing scopes, or the effect of max_chars. For a moderately complex tool with 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a clear gap.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for the 'scopes' parameter via 'within explicit scopes', but leaves 'query' and 'max_chars' unexplored. The search term behavior and character limit are not mentioned, making the description insufficient for parameter understanding.

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 'Search' with a precise resource 'current personal context within explicit scopes' and specifies output 'traceable source excerpts'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like context_bootstrap, context_closeout, and context_routes, which imply different operations.

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 implies usage by stating it searches personal context, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'use context_routes for route planning' or 'use this when scoping is needed'. Thus usage is only implied.

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