Internal Documentation Search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's behavior (listing with optional filtering) and output format (JSON string with document summaries), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. It adds some context beyond basic functionality but not comprehensive behavioral traits.

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?

Well-structured with purpose first, usage guidelines second, and parameter/return details in labeled sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose, the second provides usage context, and the Args/Returns sections clarify inputs/outputs without redundancy.

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 1 parameter with no schema descriptions and an output schema exists, the description provides good coverage: purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and return format. It doesn't need to detail return values due to the output schema. Minor gaps include lack of behavioral details like pagination or error cases.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'category' parameter's purpose ('Optional filter'), provides allowed values ('standard', 'runbook', or 'adr'), and clarifies it's optional. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's basic type information.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all documents in the knowledge base'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning 'search_internal_docs' as an alternative for specific questions. It specifies the scope ('everything available') and optional filtering capability.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('to get an overview of everything available') and when not to use ('For specific questions, prefer search_internal_docs instead'). It names the alternative tool, providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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