comprehensive_knowledge_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions 'semantic-first' and 'AI-powered semantic understanding by default' but does not clarify that searches are read-only, how results are ordered, whether pagination exists, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 two sentences long and front-loads key terms like 'Global semantic-first search'. It is concise and easy to parse, though there is minor redundancy between 'ALL' and 'entire knowledge base'.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description must provide more context. It does not describe the return format, result ordering, or how to refine searches. It also fails to address potential use cases or limitations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds context by linking 'semantic-first' and 'by default' to the semanticSearch flag, but it does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 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 clearly identifies the tool's action ('search') and its comprehensive scope ('ALL Cursor-Cortex knowledge including branch notes, tacit knowledge, archives, and context files'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_branch_notes by emphasizing its global, semantic-first nature.

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 this tool is for global, cross-knowledge search but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as search_branch_notes or graphql_knowledge_query. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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