rag_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose safety traits. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, any side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description only mentions the return type, which is insufficient for a tool with no 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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it includes unnecessary formatting like 'Args:' and bullet points which could be streamlined. Overall, it is efficient but not perfectly concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks information about behavior such as idempotency, whether it modifies state, or any rate limits. For a query tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in completeness.

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%, meaning the schema has no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal meaning: 'question: Your question' and 'top_k: Number of results to return (default 5).' These are basic repetitions of parameter names with slight elaboration, not compensating for the schema's lack of detail.

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 queries a RAG knowledge base with a question, specifying the verb 'Query' and the resource 'RAG knowledge base.' It also describes the output as relevant passages with citations, which is distinct from sibling tools like ask_document_agent or memory_query.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ask_document_agent or deep_research_research_query. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or when not to use it.

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