search_team_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it does disclose the return shape (ranked articles with titles, summaries, canonical URLs on agentcody.ai), which substitutes for a missing output schema. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or what happens with zero results, so behavioral disclosure is partial.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return format following. Slightly redundant in restating 'articles' across both sentences, but no wasted verbiage.

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 read tool with fully documented schema and an explicit statement of returned fields, the description is nearly self-sufficient. Only the relationship to the sibling tools is left unaddressed.

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 100%, so both query and limit are already documented with examples and defaults. The description's only added semantic is that results are 'ranked', which implies relevance ordering but no ranking criteria — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb (Search) and a well-defined resource (Cody's team knowledge base articles on setup, integrations, support automation and MCP). It clearly scopes the corpus, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling ask_cody, which could overlap for question-answering.

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 guidance, no 'when not to use', and no named alternative such as ask_cody or list_integrations. The topical coverage hints at the intended domain, but the agent must infer when a search is preferable to asking Cody directly.

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