query_dify_knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'returns ranked documents with content, scores, titles, and metadata,' which gives some output context, but fails to address critical behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a query tool with complex parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second describes the return format. There's no redundant information, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. A perfect score is withheld because the second sentence could be slightly more concise by integrating return details with the purpose statement.

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's complexity (4 parameters with nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and return format but misses behavioral details like error handling, performance characteristics, or examples. For a query tool with metadata filtering, more context would be beneficial to fully guide the agent.

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?

The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions 'search query' generally but doesn't clarify parameter interactions or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Query Dify external knowledge base to retrieve relevant information based on a search query.' It specifies the verb (query), resource (Dify external knowledge base), and action (retrieve information). However, without sibling tools for comparison, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or specific contexts. It simply states what the tool does without indicating scenarios where it's appropriate or inappropriate, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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