arachne_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'retrieves' answers, implying a read-only operation, but does not describe side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or response structure beyond source citations.

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 concise at two sentences, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more descriptive about the resource (e.g., specifying that the knowledge base is topic-specific) without adding length.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description gives a high-level overview of behavior and outputs. It mentions grounded answers and source citations, but lacks details on the structure of citations, pagination, or error conditions. Adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as what constitutes a good question or how to specify the knowledge base ID. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Ask questions') and the resource ('RAG knowledge base'), and specifies the output ('grounded answers with source citations'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like arachne_search (web search) and arachne_browser_extract.

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 querying a specific knowledge base, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like arachne_search or arachne_scrape. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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