search_knowledge

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

No annotations are present, and the description only states that the tool searches. It does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, how it handles large queries, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's operational implications.

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, using only two sentences plus a structured Args section. Every word adds value, with no repetition or filler. It is well-organized for quick parsing.

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 description lacks crucial contextual details: it does not explain what kind of information is retrieved, how results are returned, or how this tool differs from siblings like semantic_search or episodic_search. Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide a complete picture for an agent to reliably select and invoke the tool.

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 provides explicit and clear explanations for both parameters: 'query' is described as 'Search query (keywords or topic)' and 'max_results' as 'Maximum results to return (default: 5)'. Since the schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by adding meaning to every parameter.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'Midos knowledge base', making it clear what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like semantic_search or episodic_search, so it lacks specificity to distinguish among similar tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as semantic_search or episodic_search. The description does not specify any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.

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