Knowledge Ask

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the answer is synthesized rather than raw, it is grounded in stored objects, and it returns source citations, which tells the agent what to expect in the response.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and kept to two short sentences. 'Uses Weaviate AsyncQueryAgent in ask mode' is mildly implementation-flavored, but it does convey synthesis behavior, so it mostly earns 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey the synthesis/citation behavior, which it does. It omits any note about latency or async semantics despite 'AsyncQueryAgent', a minor gap for a grounded-generation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the query and collections parameters are already documented in the schema. The phrase 'across knowledge collections' loosely reinforces the collections parameter's scope but adds no format or syntax detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (ask a question) and resource (stored knowledge), and the phrase 'AI-generated answer' distinguishes it from retrieval siblings like knowledge_search or knowledge_query. However, it never names those siblings, so the agent must infer the distinction itself.

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 Q&A synthesis rather than raw retrieval, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against the many knowledge_* siblings. The agent has to infer that this is the synthesis path and knowledge_query/search are the lookup paths.

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