query_rag

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., text chunks, metadata), nor does it mention whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. The description focuses on parameters but lacks output behavior.

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 structured with an Args section and is reasonably concise. However, the filter examples, though helpful, add length. Overall, it is well-organized and front-loaded with the tool's primary action.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description adequately covers parameters but misses key completeness aspects: it does not describe the return format, any usage limitations, or when to avoid using this tool. Sibling differentiation is absent, reducing contextual completeness.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains each parameter clearly, including default values and practical filter examples for Milvus expressions. The collection_ids parameter is well-described with cross-collection behavior noted.

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 purpose as running a RAG query against a paper corpus with specific parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_papers, which may also involve querying papers but likely without RAG semantics.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While filter examples are given, there is no mention of scenarios where search_papers or other tools might be more appropriate.

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