Get knowledge applicable to a development context

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

Adds critical behavioral details beyond annotations: layer precedence (custom > community > microsoft) and transparency of suppressed candidates. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint).

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output format. Every sentence provides value without extraneous words.

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 7 parameters, output schema exists, and annotations present, the description covers key behaviors (precedence, transparency). Could be more explicit about parameter roles but adequate.

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 only 14% (only 'goal' described). The tool description does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond the overall context, failing to compensate for low coverage.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'returns' and resource 'knowledge files that match every frontmatter dimension', with specifics on inlined sections and layer precedence. Distinguishes from siblings by labeling itself a workflow tool and describing unique behavior.

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?

Description implies use case: given a development goal and BC context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with siblings like bcquality_search_knowledge or bcquality_get_knowledge.

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