knowledge_support

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

Despite annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint, and no destructive behavior, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it clarifies that only 'human-reviewed active assets' are accessible, that outputs are 'bounded task capsules', and that it explicitly cannot perform other operations. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent of critical limitations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. It efficiently conveys the tool's nature, limitations, and scope without unnecessary elaboration.

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 gives a strong high-level overview and constraints, but for a tool with 10 parameters and 5 operations, it doesn't explain the distinct behaviors of each operation (search, get, context, verify, inspect). The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the operational semantics are under-specified. It is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for 10 parameters, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (operation, query, asset_id, etc.). With such low coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it offers no parameter-level guidance, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from parameter names and enum values.

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+resource: it is a 'read-only gateway' for a 'DeepLaw Knowledge Asset vault'. It precisely defines scope with constraints like 'searches only human-reviewed active assets' and 'compiles bounded task capsules', which distinguishes it from potential sibling tools by also listing what it cannot do.

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 gives clear context for usage: it is 'optional' and 'explicitly selected', implying it is used when interacting with a specific vault. It provides exclusion boundaries ('cannot remember, learn, approve, import, mutate, or access Analytix case projects'), effectively telling when not to use this tool, though it doesn't name explicit alternatives.

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