kb_search

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

No annotations are given, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the fan-out behavior when vault_path is omitted and the presence of the vault field in results. It does not discuss reranking behavior, ordering, side effects, or prerequisites, but for a search operation the overall profile is reasonably inferable.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately gives the most important behavioral nuance, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough invocation context: it states what is returned, how scope is determined, and what field identifies the vault. Minor gaps around rerank and result ordering prevent a top score.

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 25%, and the description adds valuable context for vault_path by explaining the cross-vault fan-out behavior. However, it does not elaborate on query, top_k, or use_rerank; those names are self-explanatory, so this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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's action: search the knowledge base and return structured raw chunks. This distinguishes kb_search from siblings like kb_list, kb_read, and kb_stats, which are not search/retrieval operations.

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 implies when to use the tool by emphasizing search and fan-out behavior, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The scope behavior for vault_path is useful, yet no comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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