kb_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and usefully discloses the retrieval mode order: semantic search first, falling back to full-text matching if unavailable. It also describes what is returned on success and on no hit, though it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention permission/auth constraints.

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 organized into clear semantic sections (purpose, inputs, returns, next step) and is front-loaded with the core operation. Every part earns its place by covering purpose, required inputs, output behavior, and follow-up actions.

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 moderate complexity, absent annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough to invoke the tool correctly. It compensates for schema gaps and adds retrieval behavior and workflow guidance that the structured fields do not provide.

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 0%, so the description must define the parameters, and it does so completely: keyword is required, game_name is optional and scopes the search to a specific game folder. This adds precisely the meaning missing from the schema.

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 verb and resource: keyword retrieval in a local Markdown knowledge base. It also clarifies the intended content domain (monsters, bosses, tactics) and distinguishes the tool from write-oriented siblings by describing kb_write / kb_append as follow-up tools.

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?

It gives clear usage context (looking up known information about a monster, boss, or tactic) and explicitly names kb_write / kb_append as alternatives when material is missing or outdated. It does not state when not to use this tool or name other search/list alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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