knowledge_document_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose action modes, output behavior, or any constraints; 'Document' is also ambiguous enough to not clearly signal a read-only operation.

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 short and free of padding, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A terse fragment cannot convey meaning for a 21-parameter tool, so brevity is not earning its place.

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 complex tool with 21 parameters, 2 required fields, and many siblings, this description is severely incomplete. It leaves the agent to infer the two action modes, required fields, retrieval behavior, and relationship to knowledge_document/knowledge_context from names and schema alone.

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 only 5%, and the description does not compensate for 21 mostly undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning to query, action, document_type, required_evidence, or any other field beyond the single schema-provided action note.

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 'Document plans and section evidence' is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a clear verb+resource statement; it does not say what the tool does with plans/evidence. It gives no differentiation from siblings such as knowledge_document, knowledge_context, or knowledge_page.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided, and no alternatives are named. The only hint is the action enum in the schema ('plan=design outline;section=collect evidence'), which the description itself does not surface.

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