search_knowledge

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a useful behavioral guarantee: the result is data, not instructions, which is important context for an agent handling retrieved content. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the resource scope and result type efficiently, earning its place without unnecessary detail.

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 read-only search tool with annotations and an output schema, the description provides a viable baseline. However, it omits any parameter semantics, especially for `source_id` and `max_characters`, and it offers no situational guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings.

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 0%, and the description provides no guidance about `query`, `limit`, `source_id`, or `max_characters`. The tool name implies searchability, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 a specific action (`检索`/retrieve), a specific resource (`已导入且未隔离的本地资料`/imported local materials), and the nature of the result (`数据而非指令`/data not instructions). This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from sibling calculation and run-management 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?

The description makes the usage context clear: search the imported local knowledge base. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended context is unambiguous enough for basic routing.

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