knowledge_search

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it returns ranked documents, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any permissions, side effects, or limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is informative, with no fluff or repetition of the schema.

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?

The description adequately states the purpose and basic output, but lacks context about the result format, pagination behavior, or distinctions among scopes. Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more guidance to the agent, making it minimally sufficient but not completely helpful.

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 100%, and the description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of 'query' in the description is redundant given the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('knowledge documents'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'knowledge_get' and 'knowledge_list' by focusing on search and relevance ranking.

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 finding relevant documents, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It lacks any mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or specific use cases such as when to use knowledge_get or knowledge_list instead.

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