knowledge_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one trait—that results retain evidence type and unreviewed probes are not AI listening results—but says nothing about read-only behavior, permissions, performance, or limitations. This is minimal disclosure for a search tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 with no filler. It leads with the core purpose and adds a valuable behavioral note, all without wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and any differentiation from the many sibling tools. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 0%, meaning the description offers no explanation for any of the three parameters (kind, limit, query). The agent receives no guidance on valid values, defaults, or semantics beyond the schema itself, which is insufficient for a tool with an enum parameter and limits.

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 the tool searches stored parameters, probes, and assessments, giving a specific verb and resource. It also adds a distinguishing nuance about evidence types and unreviewed probes, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools like sound_search or effect_search, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the resource names alone.

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