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 burden. It discloses the search scope and content coverage, and the verb 'search' implies a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention result format, pagination, or performance implications of searching across all events.

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 that states the action, scope, content types, and intended use in sequence. Every part earns its place; no redundant modifiers. The structure is ideal for quick agent scanning.

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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to select and invoke it: query text is covered by the schema, and the description adds the cross-event scope and likely purpose. It does not describe the return shape, but for a search tool with no output schema this is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 50%: q is described, but language only has an enum. The description's reference to 'writeups (Thai/English)' hints at the language dimension, but it does not directly explain the language parameter's filtering behavior. The q parameter's purpose is already clear in the schema; the description adds searchable-content context but no parameter-level detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search across all events') and enumerates the exact content types searched: challenge descriptions, writeups (Thai/English), and tags. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling CRUD/list tools, which operate on individual events, challenges, or writeups rather than cross-cutting search.

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 phrase 'find how similar challenges were solved before' implies a research/knowledge-retrieval use case, and the scope 'all events' suggests when a broad search is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_writeup or list_challenges, and it offers no exclusions or conditions.

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