research_rag_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions 'embedding-free' and 'local', but doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, what the query does exactly, or what limitations or side effects exist.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and resource. However, it may be slightly too terse, sacrificing important context for brevity.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description must explain what the query returns and how parameters influence the result. It doesn't, and the sibling tool list doesn't compensate for this missing context. The description is too minimal for a tool with three parameters and no output schema.

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 0%, and the description adds no explanations for the parameters 'text', 'kind', or 'limit'. The agent must guess what 'text' should contain and what 'kind' controls, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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 action ('Query') and resource ('local embedding-free 1200-paper RAG'), making the purpose unmistakable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the resource specification is distinct enough to separate it from general research tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like research_frontier_search or research_controller. The description only states what it does, not the scenario in which it should be selected.

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