kb_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing behavioral beyond that — no mention of ranking, result limits, or how the limit parameter affects behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the inline examples earn their space by showing the agent exactly what query strings are valid.

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?

A read-only search tool with an output schema and safety annotations needs little more, but the undocumented layer_id scoping and limit default are real gaps for a tool where narrowing results matters. Return values correctly need not be described since an output schema exists.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. It meaningfully clarifies the required 'query' parameter with NL and identifier examples, but 'limit' and especially 'layer_id' scoping are left completely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the knowledge base') and clarifies the two accepted query modes with concrete examples ('how are UI tests run', 'Hilt', 'testInstrumentationRunner'). It reads clearly against retrieval siblings like kb_get_section, though it does not explicitly name when to prefer it over kb_overview or kb_get_section.

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 on when to use this tool versus kb_overview, kb_get_section, or kb_list_layers. Nothing tells the agent which situations call for a search versus a direct section fetch, leaving the routing decision entirely to inference.

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