search_knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search' and provides no information about read-only nature, rate limits, auth requirements, or response format. For a knowledge base search, it is implicitly non-destructive, but this is not explicitly stated, and no additional behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and concise. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but it is somewhat sparse compared to what might be expected for a search tool. It earns a 4 because it is efficiently written but slightly under-specified in terms of content density.

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 tool's simplicity, the description is minimal but leaves out important context such as the existence of sibling tools for similar purposes (e.g., get_knowledge). Without an output schema or annotations, the description should at least clarify what kind of results are returned or how this search differs from other access methods. This absence makes it incomplete for an agent to confidently select this tool.

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 descriptions for all parameters (query and categories), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline without compensating for any gaps.

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 the tool's function: 'Search the RPG Maker MZ knowledge base' with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('RPG Maker MZ knowledge base'). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_knowledge' or 'get_best_practices', which may also involve retrieving knowledge base content, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving the agent without context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions. No mention of sibling tools or conditions for use, so it fails to offer usage guidance.

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