store-knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable behaviors beyond a simple 'store' action: 'Automatically embeds the text and returns the stored ID.' This informs the agent about the embedding process and the return value. It does not mention edge cases like duplicate handling or potential errors, but for a store operation it is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core operation, the second explains the embedding and return ID. It is concise and well-structured.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the core purpose, persistence semantics, and automatic embedding. It could mention storage prerequisites or default collection behavior, but the schema covers collection_name defaults. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide to use 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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds only a reference to 'text' being embedded, which relates to the 'content' parameter but does not clarify tags, title, metadata, or collection_name beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Store useful information or knowledge into the long-term knowledge base (Qdrant).' It also conveys persistence for later retrieval by the agent or other agents. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'store-knowledge-bulk' tool, leaving that differentiation to the tool name.

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 implied usage context: 'This allows the agent to persist data that can be retrieved later or by other agents.' It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions such as 'for bulk storage, use store-knowledge-bulk.' The guidance is present but not explicit.

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