Search BULC knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of genuine behavioral context — 'Works without the app' (no live project connection required) — but says nothing about result format or ranking, so it is modest added value against an already-rich annotation set.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and scope, and each listed content kind is informative rather than filler. The trailing Korean gloss restates part of the first sentence and is mildly redundant, but overall the text is dense and earns its place.

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?

For a 4-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the content taxonomy and query formats an agent needs, and notes it works standalone. It does not describe the shape of returned results (fields, ranking, or how 'limit' interacts with kinds/domain filters), which is the main remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's generic 'Rule id, class name, FDS key, error number or free text' by giving concrete literal formats ('FIRE-001', 'Mesh', 'MESH.IJK', 'ERROR 314') and confirming bilingual Korean/English queries — this meaningfully helps the agent construct a correct query.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search the bundled BULC knowledge pack) and enumerates exactly what is searchable — rules, mistakes, ontology classes, playbook steps, glossary, FDS keys and errors. An agent can tell it is the retrieval tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like bulc_get_rules or bulc_find_tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It tells the agent what to pass (rule id, class, FDS key, error, or free text in ko/en) and that it 'works without the app', which implies offline retrieval. However it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as bulc_get_rules or get_conventions, so usage is inferred rather than directed.

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