search_knowledge

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

The description adds one behavioral detail: 'Low-confidence context is removed in strict mode.' This is useful and not apparent from the schema. However, without annotations, the description should disclose more (e.g., permissions, read-only nature, pagination), which it does not.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds valuable behavioral context. No filler or 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?

With 6 parameters and no annotations, this description is too sparse. The output schema may define return values, but the description does not explain the tool's capabilities (e.g., filtering by source, project, or mode) well enough for an agent to use it effectively.

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, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'strict' (the confidence parameter) removes low-confidence context, but it does not explain mode, source, project, or limit parameters. This leaves a significant gap.

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 'Search governed knowledge' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_knowledge_sources and rag_status. The action and object are immediately clear.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'search', but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. listing sources or checking rag status. Alternatives are not mentioned.

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