kb_search

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 discloses that the search is semantic and via an internal agent, which hints at potential latency or indirect execution but does not elaborate. It also mentions it returns 'source identification + snippets,' which is useful. However, it omits details like result ranking, pagination, or errors, which is a gap given no annotations.

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 sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core function (search, semantic, internal agent) and immediately tells the user what it returns, followed by a pointer to the alternative. Every word contributes.

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 that the tool has only 2 parameters (one required) and no complex nested objects, the description covers the essential purpose and return type. The presence of an output schema helps, though it isn't shown in the description. The main missing piece is parameter semantics, but for a simple search tool, the overall context is fairly complete.

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 explain the parameters, but it does not mention query or limit at all. The schema itself provides basic types but not semantics; the description adds no value beyond what the schema shows identity-wise. The description's mention of returning snippets implies query is used for search, but it doesn't clarify limit's role (e.g., max results) or default behavior, leaving the agent to infer. This is a moderate gap.

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 searches the knowledge base semantically via an internal agent and returns source identification plus snippets. It distinguishes itself from kb_get (for fetching full text) and implies its use for finding relevant content, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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 says to use kb_get to fetch full text, which provides a clear alternative for when more detail is needed. However, it does not mention when to prefer kb_ask or kb_list, leaving some ambiguity in distinguishing from those siblings, but the primary routing (search vs. fetch) is clear.

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