Search knowledge

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

The description discloses the matching mechanism (case-insensitive text, tag boosting), the scope (including not-yet-triaged inbox captures), and the return format (sections with file paths). It does not mention potential side effects or limitations like rate limits, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Search'.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently cover the tool's functionality, output, and usage context. There is no redundant or vague wording, and every clause contributes informational value.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description single-handedly provides sufficient context: it defines the search scope, matching behavior, return details, and a clear use-case. It also clarifies that it returns sections rather than full documents, which is crucial for an agent deciding between this and a document retrieval 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?

The tool description adds meaning to the single 'query' parameter by explaining that it performs case-insensitive text matching and that tag matches boost results. This goes beyond the schema's example terms, giving the agent insight into how the query is interpreted.

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 function: searching all engineering knowledge Markdown documents, including inbox captures. It specifies the resource, the verb 'Search', and the output (sections with file paths), making it unambiguous and distinct from other potential tools.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this before asking the user about internal conventions, infra, APIs, auth, or platform config.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool, and the implicit contrast with retrieving full documents (sections vs. full documents) hints at when not to use it.

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