kb_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool is a read-oriented search, explicitly states it never returns full documents, and names the follow-up tool. The 'Aucune base' note adds important environmental context. It does not discuss failure modes or limits, but these are partially covered by schema constraints.

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?

Three short sentences deliver purpose, return behavior, follow-up guidance, and a status caveat without redundant filler. The most actionable information is front-loaded, and every sentence 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 and no annotations, the description provides enough context: what is searched, what is returned, what is not returned, and which sibling to use next. It could name kb_list as a way to discover registered bases, but the explicit 'no base registered' warning compensates by setting expectations.

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 75%, and the schema already documents base, query, and mode in detail. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond stating that the search targets a corpus, so it stays at baseline. The max_results parameter lacks a description, but its semantics are inferable from its name and constraints.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Recherche plein texte dans le corpus d'une base') and defines the return payload: paths, titles, and relevant excerpts, never full documents. It also distinguishes itself from kb_read by explicitly routing full-document reads to that sibling.

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 gives clear usage context: use kb_search to find relevant excerpts, then use kb_read to read a document or section. It also provides an important current-state caveat ('Aucune base n'est actuellement enregistrée') so the agent knows the search may have nothing to operate on. It does not enumerate when not to use the tool, but the guidance is sufficient.

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