search_knowledge_files_api_v1_knowledge_search_files_get

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

The description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the literal meaning. There is no mention of pagination, authentication requirements, side effects, or what the output contains. With no annotations to compensate, this is a significant gap.

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 short (three words), but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It does not earn its place as it provides minimal information, falling short of a minimally viable description.

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 complexity (2 parameters, output schema, many sibling tools), the description is woefully incomplete. It omits details on pagination, response structure, and how it relates to knowledge bases, failing to provide a complete context for the agent.

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 description does not explain any of the two parameters (query and page) beyond what the schema already shows. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but completely ignores parameter semantics.

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 'Search' and resource 'Knowledge Files', making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'search_knowledge_bases_api_v1_knowledge_search_get' or 'search_files_api_v1_files_search_get', missing a chance to clarify scope.

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 when to use search_knowledge_bases or search_files. The description lacks any context, exclusions, or examples.

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