Read the knowledge base

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds meaningful behavior: texts are truncated at 1500 characters in concise mode, and the response is delivered as structuredContent with a named shape. It does not mention auth requirements, but for a read-only tenant-scoped fetch that is a minor omission.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and its truncation behavior. The final sentence restates the structuredContent shape that the output schema already declares, which is slight redundancy but also serves as a quick preview.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, truncation behavior, and the sibling routing for files. Repeating the return object fields is redundant given the output schema, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum is documented, establishing a baseline of 3, but the description adds a concrete detail the schema lacks: the 1500-character cutoff that 'concise' enforces, which is decision-relevant for choosing a format. It adds real meaning rather than restating the enum.

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 and resource ('Returns what the workers know about the business') and enumerates the concrete contents: business context, products, pain points, value proposition, qualification criteria, and custom entries. This clearly separates it from the mutation siblings heliyos_knowledge_update and heliyos_knowledge_entries_set, and from the separate file 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?

The description gives a routing hint for the adjacent case: 'Knowledge-base files are listed with heliyos_files_list kind knowledge_base', telling the agent not to expect the file listing here. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over a full record read, but the read-context is unambiguous for a knowledge-base fetch.

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