get_all_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only (returns knowledge) and describes the return format as markdown text. It does not mention potential performance impact or caching, but for a retrieval tool this is adequate.

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 well-structured with bullet points and a clear return statement, but it is slightly verbose (e.g., repeating 'IMPORTANT' and using full sentences for lists). Could be trimmed, but still effective and easy to parse.

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?

The description fully covers purpose, usage, and output format. It mentions the tool returns all saved knowledge as markdown text, and there are no parameters or complex outputs. Given the context (zero parameters, output schema exists), it is complete.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100% (0 parameters). Baseline score of 4 is appropriate given no compensation needed.

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 'Get ALL saved knowledge about this Universe database' and lists specific types of knowledge (file descriptions, field definitions, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like search_knowledge and list_knowledge by emphasizing 'ALL' and the context of use.

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 instructs to 'Call this tool at the start of conversations' and explains why—to retrieve previously learned information. It also implicitly differentiates from search_knowledge (which filters) and save_knowledge (which saves).

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