search_knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming no state modification. The description adds valuable behavioral details: ranking method (FTS5 bm25 vs term-overlap), condition for merging xAI collection results, and origin field. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is extremely concise: three sentences plus a two-item parameter list. Front-loaded with core purpose, then ranking and optional collection merging. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (covers return values), read-only annotation, and only two parameters, the description sufficiently covers search domain, ranking, and optional collection merging. Could be slightly more explicit about local vs. collection result differentiation, but overall adequate.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining 'query' as search terms and 'limit' as maximum local facts with valid range (1-25) and default (5). This adds basic meaning, though lacks query syntax or more 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?

Description clearly states the tool searches workspace knowledge memory for facts matching a query, using verb 'search' and resource 'workspace knowledge memory'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'remember_fact', 'forget_fact', 'web_search', and 'x_search' by specifying it is local and read-only.

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 description implies usage for local knowledge search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'web_search' or 'x_search'. No explicit when-not or alternative tool names are given, leaving the agent to infer context.

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