search_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool performs semantic search and returns chunks with url and source_md_path, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. It is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that leads with the operation and then the return shape. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 is simple, has an output schema, and the description conveys the core search behavior. However, the 0% parameter coverage and lack of usage guidance leave an agent to infer details about top_k and when this tool should be chosen over siblings. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the description needed to compensate. It adds meaning to the query parameter through 'Búsqueda semántica' but says nothing about top_k, result limits, or how the query is interpreted. The schema's default value is the only clue for top_k.

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 names a specific operation ('Búsqueda semántica') and a specific resource ('fuentes scrapeadas'), and it states the return shape ('chunks con url y source_md_path'). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from file-management and source-listing siblings.

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 that this tool is for querying scraped knowledge rather than for file operations or listing sources, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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