Semantic search over the security knowledge base. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| k | No | Number of results to return (default 5) | |
| type | No | Filter results to this entity type (e.g. 'threat') | |
| query | Yes | Natural-language search query |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. States 'read-only' which is helpful but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, response format, or pagination. Schema covers all parameters but description adds little beyond 'semantic' and 'read-only'.
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?
Highly concise, one sentence plus a tag. Front-loaded with key information. No extra words.
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?
Despite simple parameters, the tool is a semantic search with no output schema. The description omits important context such as what the results look like (IDs, snippets, scores), whether it indexes all content, and any special behaviors. Agent may need to guess return format.
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 each parameter is described. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states 'semantic search over the security knowledge base' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like kb_get, kb_list which are likely for retrieval rather than search.
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?
Only mentions 'read-only' but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No comparison with sibling tools or conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: building checklists, classifying threats, mapping compliance, fetching by ID, listing entities, mapping framework IDs, traversing relationships, and semantic search. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tools use the 'kb_' prefix followed by a descriptive word, but the pattern varies: some are verbs (classify, get, list, search), one is a noun (checklist), and one is an adjective (related). Mostly consistent but with minor deviations.
8 tools is an appropriate number for a read-only knowledge base, covering the essential retrieval, search, and mapping operations without being excessive.
The tool set covers all necessary read operations for a security knowledge base: search, classification, compliance mapping, entity retrieval, listing, relationship traversal, and checklist generation. No obvious gaps given the read-only scope.