ima_search_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not that the operation is read-only, not the result format (note hits vs. files), and not that results are paginated. A bare 'search' with zero annotation coverage leaves the agent guessing about safety and return shape.

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 definition is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is not verbose. But its brevity is under-specification rather than economy — the one sentence cannot support a three-parameter, unannotated search tool.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage on three parameters, the description is the only source of behavioral information and provides almost none. It omits pagination via cursor, result content, and prerequisites for obtaining the knowledge base ID, all of which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so all three parameters depend on the description for meaning, yet it only vaguely gestures at knowledge_base_id ('指定 IMA 知识库') and query ('搜索内容'). The cursor parameter — the mechanism for paging through results — is never mentioned at all, leaving a third of the inputs undocumented in both schema and description.

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 pairs a specific verb (搜索/search) with a specific resource scope — content inside a designated IMA knowledge base — which separates it from ima_search_notes and ima_search_knowledge_bases at a coarse level. However, it never explicitly names those siblings or states what kind of content (notes, files, media) is searched, so differentiation is only implied.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. An agent must infer from the name and the sibling list whether to use this versus ima_search_notes or ima_search_knowledge_bases, and nothing indicates whether a knowledge_base_id must be discovered first via ima_list_knowledge or ima_search_knowledge_bases.

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