search_learnings

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Searches' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and 'within the current project' scopes the behavior. However, it does not disclose matching semantics, result ordering, or whether the search is restricted beyond the current project.

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 active sentence that front-loads the main verb and includes only useful scope information. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only search with a fully described parameter schema, the basic invocation is covered. However, there is no output schema and the description does not state what the returned matches look like or how results are ordered/limited, so an agent must infer some behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of workspace_path by mentioning the 'current project', but it does not add meaningful detail about query syntax or the limit parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Searches'), names the resource ('learning bank'), and adds scope ('past reflections within the current project'). It is immediately clear what this tool does and how it differs from siblings like log_reasoning_reflection or revert_reasoning_transaction.

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 intended use is implied: use this when you need to retrieve past reflections from the learning bank. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the contrast with siblings implicit rather than stated.

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