rag_answer

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool generates an answer and retrieves context chunks, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or has any side effects.

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 focused sentence followed by a structured Args list. There is no redundant information, and each line adds value without inflating length.

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 simple tool with three parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. It could be improved by mentioning when to use this tool instead of sibling search tools, but overall it is contextually adequate.

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 explicitly documents all three parameters (query, collection, top_k) with concise, meaningful descriptions that go beyond the schema's type-only definitions. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fully compensates and adds clear semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'Generate' and identifies the resource as 'a RAG answer with citations from the knowledge base'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_documents, which ostensibly retrieve raw documents rather than generating answers.

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 states what the tool does but does not specify when to use it over sibling tools such as search_documents or similar_documents. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so usage guidance is only implied by the RAG-specific wording.

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