knowledge_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says matching text is found and snippets are cited. It does not disclose whether matching is semantic or literal, whether results are ranked, whether scope spans all project knowledge or respects permissions, or how the limit interacts with result count.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, with no padding. The bilingual duplication doubles the length without adding information for an agent, which is the only real economy issue.

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 two-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description omits too much: search semantics, result ordering, limit behavior, and any routing against the three sibling knowledge tools. The mention of 'cited snippets' is the one genuinely helpful return-value clue.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters and does not. 'Matching text' weakly hints that query is textual input, but nothing explains the limit parameter, its default of 5, or the 1-20 cap, leaving the agent to read raw schema constraints.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find matching text in project knowledge') and even declares the return shape ('cited snippets'), so the purpose is unambiguous. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like knowledge_read or knowledge_catalog, which the name alone has to carry.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to search versus using knowledge_read to open a known document or knowledge_catalog to enumerate resources. The agent must infer selection from the tool name, and the sibling set makes that inference non-trivial.

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