solucortex_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the rate limit ('20 req/min'), the embedding model dependency ('OpenAI embeddings'), and the ad-hoc nature. This is useful behavioral context without contradicting 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the operation, the second gives usage context and sibling differentiation, the third discloses operational constraints. The most important distinction is front-loaded.

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 the simple search operation, full schema coverage, readOnly/openWorld annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, sibling differentiation, and rate limiting — nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but it sets general context (semantic search over memories). This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Ad-hoc semantic search of memories (POST /search/semantic).' It also gives a concrete example ('how is authentication implemented?') and explicitly distinguishes itself from solucortex_recall, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It says precisely when to use this tool — 'for specific questions during a task' — and when not to, by contrasting with recall, which 'builds the full startup context.' This gives the agent an explicit selection rule between the two most similar siblings.

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