read_tacit_knowledge

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

The verb 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, and the description outlines three access behaviors. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose output format, result size, or whether semantic search triggers side effects like embedding generation.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and then efficiently lists the supported access modes. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose; there is no padding.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description omits important context such as tag filtering (searchTags) and cross-project search (crossProject). It also does not explain what is returned (e.g., full document content vs. metadata), leaving gaps for an agent to resolve.

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%, but the description adds meaningful structure by grouping parameters into three usage modes: exact filename (documentName), text search (searchTerm), and semantic search (semanticSearch + similarityThreshold). This provides context beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 the tool reads tacit knowledge documents and identifies three distinct access modes (filename, text, semantic). This is a specific verb+resource combination, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_branch_notes or comprehensive_knowledge_search, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely capability-focused and does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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