search_knowledge

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

The description only states the basic function. With no annotations available, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as filtering semantics, ordering, result limits, or whether knowledge entries from all projects are included by default. It does not contradict annotations because none exist.

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 short sentences with no rhetorical fluff. It immediately states the action and resource, making it highly scannable.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and six parameters with several filters, the description is too minimal to fully orient an agent. It fails to explain the difference from search_catalog or how filters interact, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema.

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 already provides descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage). The description adds only a vague sense of content scope ('insights, tips, and lessons learned') but does not elaborate on how parameters like tags, category, or include_general affect the search.

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 identifies a search action against knowledge entries and hints at the content type (insights, tips, lessons learned). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_catalog, which may also perform searches, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 instead of alternatives such as search_catalog or get_document. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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