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 behavioral burden. It discloses that search is 'hybrid' (a useful signal about semantic+keyword matching), but says nothing about result limits, pagination, ranking, or what a result object contains. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb-first structure and no filler. The enumeration of asset types is informative rather than wasteful, though 'all NSTOK knowledge assets' is slightly redundant with the list that follows.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of return-value context, and it never describes what results look like (ranked matches? ids? snippets?). It is sufficient to trigger a call but incomplete for interpreting the response or understanding limits.

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 already documents query, type, and repository. The description adds no syntax, format, or ranking details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and enumerates the resource scope (NSTOK knowledge assets, features, UI components, DB entities, patterns, repositories). The enumeration implicitly maps to the type-specific siblings (find_features, find_ui_components, etc.), but it never explicitly frames itself as the unified alternative to those tools, leaving the differentiation to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or identification of the find_features/find_ui_components/find_db_entities alternatives. 'Across all' hints at cross-type search but the agent must infer the selection criterion itself. No guidance on when a scoped find_* call would be preferable.

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