query_knowledge_base

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns 'the top-2 documents' content and heading', indicating a limit and format. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or how relevance is determined. This provides basic but incomplete behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second specifies the return behavior, and the 'Args' section efficiently explains the parameter. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (a query operation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, return format, and parameter semantics. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or performance, leaving minor gaps.

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 adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage (only a title 'Query'), but the description explains that 'query' is 'The search query string', clarifying its purpose and usage. Since there's only one parameter, this adequately compensates for the low schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Query the knowledge base for relevant documents.' It specifies the verb ('query') and resource ('knowledge base'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_text_to_index' or 'ingest_pdfs'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar query tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 by stating it returns documents 'to be used as context', suggesting it's for retrieving background information. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., if other query tools exist) or any prerequisites. This leaves usage context somewhat vague.

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