search_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses scope (specified knowledge base), coverage (files and folders), and return type (titles and snippets), which gives basic clarity. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, cursor use, content depth (full-text vs metadata), or whether it is read-only, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 composed of two short, front-loaded sentences that state the core function and output. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence contributes meaningful information. This is appropriately concise.

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 simple search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and return type. However, it lacks pagination/cursor handling details and does not address the sibling tool overlap, which are relevant contextual gaps. It is adequate but not fully 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 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description adds only the context that searching is by keyword and returns titles/snippets, which maps to the 'query' and 'knowledge_base_id' parameters but does not enrich the meaning of 'cursor' or provide format details. This stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 it searches content by keyword in a specified knowledge base, including files and folders, and returns titles and summary snippets. This specifies the verb, resource, and result. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool search_knowledge_base, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 says it is the 'core interface' for knowledge base content retrieval, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_knowledge_base. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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