find_bc_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as performing searches, which suggests read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state safety, required permissions, or potential side effects.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no extraneous words, and the main action is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should provide hints about the return format or behavior. It does not mention what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or how it differs from similar tools like ask_bc_expert or get_bc_topic. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for proper invocation.

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?

All 4 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning beyond mentioning the types of searches (topics, specialists, workflows) which are already enumerated in the schema.

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 that the tool searches BC knowledge topics, finds specialists, or discovers workflows. It uses specific verbs and resources, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_bc_topic or list_specialists.

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 advises using this tool when users want information about BC development, providing a general usage context. However, it does not include when not to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving the agent with only implied guidance.

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