search_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait — no worktree/family resolution, so the key must match exactly — but omits ranking behavior, result limits/pagination, and any permission or rate-limit context.

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?

Two dense sentences with the search-mode-and-scope constraint front-loaded; every clause carries information. Minor redundancy in restating the no-worktree-resolution rule that also appears in the repo schema description.

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?

Complete for a hybrid search over a knowledge base: the key behavioral constraint (exact repo key, no resolution) and the recommended key choice are stated. Return format and ranking needn't be explained since there is no output schema, though limit/pagination semantics remain unaddressed.

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 only 33% (only 'repo' documented), so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for 'repo' (exact key, no worktree/family resolution, main-checkout for shared notes), but says nothing about 'query' syntax or the 'limit' parameter's meaning or default.

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: 'Hybrid semantic + fulltext search over curated notes'. The scope ('curated notes under an exact repository-path key') distinguishes it from the generic search_hybrid/search_fulltext/search_semantic siblings by data domain, though it never names an alternative outright.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'curated notes' domain and the directive 'Use the established main-checkout key for shared notes', which tells the agent which key to supply. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-search_hybrid guidance or exclusions, leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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