retrieve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses only that output is 'clean context'. It says nothing about read-only vs mutation, permissions, rate limits, result ordering, or the shape of the returned passages.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler, which is efficient. The brevity is not wasteful, though it contributes to the overall thinness rather than being a structural flaw.

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 3-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, a generic name, and 33% parameter coverage, the description is far too sparse. It never explains the return format, result count behavior implied by top_k, or how it relates to sibling retrieval tools.

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 33%: the advisor_dir parameter is well documented in the schema (name-or-path plus explicit error on unknown), but 'query' and 'top_k' are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning for those two parameters, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a concrete output (grounded passages from the advisor's corpus) mapped to a query, which is more specific than the generic name 'retrieve'. However, it does not distinguish itself from plausible siblings like catalog_search, atomic_grounding, or cite, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the text alone.

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 parenthetical '(чистый контекст для ризонинга)' implies the tool feeds a reasoning step, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many retrieval-adjacent siblings. Guidance is left almost entirely to inference.

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