knitbrain_search_learnings

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that results are 'ranked headlines' but omits critical details like read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it is destructive. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 with two sentences that convey purpose, return format, and a recommended next step. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and two simple parameters, the description covers the basic return format (id + summary) and provides a sibling reference. However, it lacks details on ranking criteria, error cases, or how to interpret results, making it only partially 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters 'query' and 'limit', and the description adds no meaning beyond their names. It does not explain what constitutes a valid query, how limit affects results, or any defaults, leaving the agent with no guidance.

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 tool searches 'project learnings' and returns 'ranked headlines (id + summary)', specifying the verb and resource. It directly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'knitbrain_get_learning', which retrieves a full lesson.

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 explicitly tells the agent to call 'knitbrain_get_learning' for a full lesson, providing clear guidance on when to switch to a sibling tool. However, it does not discuss when not to use this tool or compare it to other search-related siblings.

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