search_knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'published' and 'hybrid semantic + lexical retrieval,' which provides some context, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe potential side effects, pagination, or other operational details.

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 well-structured, beginning with a clear one-sentence summary followed by concise parameter explanations. It is slightly longer than necessary but each line adds value, making it efficient and readable.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, and retrieval method, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. It lacks explicit alternative usage but is otherwise sufficiently complete for a search tool with a straightforward scope.

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 input schema provides only titles and types (e.g., 'Query', 'Limit'), while the description adds substantial meaning by explaining each parameter, such as 'query: Natural language query to search knowledge items for' and 'min_confidence: Minimum confidence score filter (0.0 to 1.0).' This effectively compensates for the 0% schema description 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Search published knowledge items and packages using hybrid semantic + lexical retrieval.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_sources, which focuses on sources rather than knowledge items.

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 the tool is for searching knowledge items but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion scenarios. There is no mention of when to prefer search_sources or other siblings, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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