search_kb

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the hybrid search method and return format ('relevant chunks with relevance scores'), but omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. It adds some value but leaves gaps for a search tool.

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 highly concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality and output, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's purpose.

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's moderate complexity (6 parameters, hybrid search) and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the search method and return format but lacks details on output structure (e.g., chunk format, score ranges) and behavioral aspects like performance or limitations, leaving room for improvement.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'hybrid' aspect in more detail or clarifying 'chunks'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Search a knowledge base') and method ('using hybrid semantic + keyword search'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_knowledge_bases' or 'insert_kb' by focusing on search functionality rather than listing or creation.

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 usage for retrieving relevant information from a knowledge base, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query' or 'describe'. It lacks context on exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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