get_project_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Search' clearly indicates a read-only operation, which is a useful safety signal. However, it doesn't disclose what the search returns (e.g., snippets, full documents), any ordering/filtering semantics, or potential limitations.

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 sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. It is appropriately sized with zero waste—every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 search tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by explaining what the knowledge base contains. The lack of output guidance is mitigated by the intuitive nature of a search action, though the description could mention typical use cases.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already states; it doesn't elaborate on how 'type' or 'search' interact or the format of project_id.

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 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource as 'project knowledge base', with a parenthetical that details content types (architecture, best practices, specs). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task_details and add_project_knowledge.

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 implies usage for finding project knowledge, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that add_project_knowledge is for adding while this is for searching, or when search_plan_tasks might be more appropriate.

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