search_knowledge_base

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the search scope across multiple repository types and implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention result behavior, external network access, or any side effects. The cross-repository scope is useful, though the broader behavioral profile is incomplete.

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 with no wasted words. The primary action and object are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence expands the search scope with concrete source categories. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter schema and read-only search nature, the description is largely complete: it states purpose, content types, and sources. It does not describe the result format, which would be needed if there were no output schema, but the overall information is sufficient for an agent to decide to call this tool.

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%, so both query and maxResults are already well documented with types, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning about query syntax or result limits beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not improve on it.

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 states a specific action ('Search') and a clear resource ('the MCP knowledge base'), then narrows the scope with content types ('documentation, examples, and best practices') and sources ('official MCP repos, community servers, and your repositories with .claude/ directories'). This differentiates it from siblings like get_mcp_specification and update_knowledge_base.

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 when to use the tool — when looking for documentation, examples, or best practices — but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or which sibling alternative to prefer. There is no exclusion for 'use get_mcp_specification instead', leaving the agent to infer routing.

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