knowledge_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches a knowledge base but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as read-only vs. destructive nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or expected output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or any constraints on usage. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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%, meaning none of the 4 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what parameters like 'app_id', 'query', 'domain', or 'limit' mean or how they should be used. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 action ('Search') and the target resource ('Postgres knowledge base'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'store_search' or 'store_search_all', which appear to be related search operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score for sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'store_search' and 'store_search_all' available, there's no indication of how 'knowledge_search' differs in scope or context, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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