search_knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond the search scope, such as how results are ranked or returned. Given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not especially informative.

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 short sentences, front-loading the core function in the first sentence and giving usage guidance in the second. No filler or redundancy, and every clause contributes to helping the agent decide when to use this tool.

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?

For a read-only search tool with two simple parameters and full schema descriptions, the description is nearly complete. It explains scope and usage context but stops short of describing output shape or how to interpret results, which an output schema would normally handle. Given no output schema exists, a small gap remains, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a serious risk.

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 parameters are already fully documented with examples. The description reinforces the meaning of the `layer` enum by naming the categories (principles, patterns, business) that match the enum values. It does not contradict the schema and adds slight contextual meaning without needing to compensate for gaps.

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 specifies the exact action ('Search') and the full resource scope ('all design principles, UI patterns, and business strategies'), distinguishing it from category-specific siblings like get_principles or get_pattern. The phrase 'or don't know which category to look in' helps an agent understand this is the cross-cutting discovery tool, not a targeted one.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use signal: use it when you need specific guidance or are unsure of the category. It implies the alternative is using category-specific getter tools when the category is known, though it does not name them directly. This is clear context but not a fully explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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