query_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely states that the tool queries the knowledge base, without confirming read-only semantics, side effects, return format, or any operational constraints. The verb 'query' implies reading, but this is not made explicit, and no additional behavioral context is given.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is concise and contains no extraneous information, earning its place despite the minor semantic discrepancy noted above.

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 tool has a simple schema with three parameters and no output schema. The description provides an overview of the knowledge base categories but omits any explanation of return values or result structure. The mismatch between the description and schema regarding 'strategy candidates' also detracts from completeness, leaving the agent with only partial context.

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 input schema provides full coverage (100%) and detailed descriptions for all parameters, so the description adds limited value. However, it introduces a potential inconsistency by listing 'strategy candidates' (策略候选) as part of the knowledge base, which does not correspond to any enum value in the schema. This could mislead an agent into attempting an invalid query type, and the description does not clarify parameter-specific behavior beyond 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 identifies the action (query) and the resource (the accumulated knowledge base), listing specific content categories. It distinguishes from sibling tools through the verb 'query' (查询) versus inject, evolve, and history retrieval. Even though the list includes 'strategy candidates' not present in the schema's enum, the primary purpose remains unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name. This is a significant gap given the availability of related tools like inject_knowledge and get_evolution_history.

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