kb_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return content (file:line and status), which matters since there is no output schema, but says nothing about scope, matching behavior, permissions, or limits. Some value added, significant gaps remain.

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?

A single dense sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. Terseness here is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than optimal brevity.

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?

With 5 parameters (0 required), 20% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is not enough. It omits any explanation of tier/status/subject/limit and provides no usage context relative to the many kb_* siblings.

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 20% (only query is documented as AND-matched keywords). Four of five parameters (tier, limit, status, subject) are undocumented in both schema and description, and the description adds no semantics for them. It does not compensate for the 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?

States a specific verb (检索/search) and resource (原子/组合/章节 = atoms/combinations/chapters), plus what it returns (file:line and status). It is clearly a keyword search, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like kb_atoms or kb_chapter that also target those resources.

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 phrase 一次命中检索 hints at a one-shot lookup, but there is no statement of when to use this versus kb_atoms, kb_chapter, or kb_overview, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer selection from sibling names alone.

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