superpos_search_knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only search operation but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The mention of modes gives some insight into behavior, but details like pagination, result structure, or handling of missing results are absent. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates this.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the action and lists modes, the second sentence clarifies the purpose. Every word adds value with no redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 complexity (4 parameters, with 1 required, has output schema) and sibling context, the description covers the core functionality and purpose. However, it omits details on optional parameters like 'hive_id' (which scopes the search) and the effect of 'limit'. The description is adequate for basic use but leaves room for ambiguity in advanced scenarios.

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%. The description adds meaning for the 'mode' parameter by listing its possible values (hybrid, fts, semantic) and default (hybrid). However, it does not describe the 'query', 'limit', or 'hive_id' parameters, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's minimal type information. The description compensates partially for one parameter but neglects the other three.

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 searches the hive's shared knowledge store and lists the available modes (hybrid, fts, semantic). It specifies the purpose: to recall decisions, context, and results. While it indirectly distinguishes from sibling tools like superpos_get_knowledge and superpos_list_knowledge by emphasizing search, it does not explicitly differentiate between these use cases.

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 advises using the tool 'to recall decisions, context, and results other agents have stored,' which provides a clear use case. However, it does not mention when to avoid using this tool or suggest alternative tools (e.g., superpos_get_knowledge for retrieving a specific record, superpos_list_knowledge for listing all entries). No exclusionary guidance is given.

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