rag_ask

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool queries and is for context, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, destructive, or any other behavioral traits such as rate limits or error handling. For a query tool, it should at least imply safety.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence defines the action and resource, the second provides usage guidance. Every word adds value.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, behavior of different modes, or how to handle pagination or empty results. For a query tool, more completeness is needed.

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 17% (only 'query' is described). The description adds context on the tool's purpose but provides no details on parameters like 'mode' (enum values), 'top_k', or 'include_references'. This is insufficient to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Query' and the resource 'local LightRAG knowledge base for repository context'. It also specifies when to use it (before answering questions about code architecture, etc.), helping distinguish from sibling tools like rag_query_data or rag_index_repo.

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 explicitly advises using this tool before answering specific types of questions (code architecture, historical decisions, etc.). However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among the many siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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