search_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'full-text search' and gives a routing hint; it does not disclose behavior such as whether it searches only certain knowledge bases, how results are ordered, whether it is read-only, or what the output format is. For a search tool, this is a notable gap.

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 extremely short and front-loaded: it states the purpose and the routing hint in one line. Every word earns its place, and the priority note is placed at the end as a clear directive.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not mention what the search covers, how to interpret results, or any constraints. The routing hint is useful, but for a tool with 2 parameters and no other structured context, the description leaves important gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'query' parameter beyond the tool's name, and 'limit' is entirely undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, leaving the agent to infer from the schema types alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '知识库全文检索' (knowledge base full-text search), and explicitly says '节点请优先 lookup_node' (for nodes, prefer lookup_node), which distinguishes it from the sibling lookup_node. It is concise and clear, though it doesn't elaborate on what the search returns.

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 explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool: for nodes, prefer lookup_node. This provides a clear routing rule relative to a sibling. However, it doesn't explain when to use search_knowledge over other siblings like lookup_official_doc or list_skills, leaving some ambiguity.

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