query_rag

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'Query the RAG knowledge base'. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) but under-specified. While it is front-loaded, it fails to provide necessary information, making it a tautology of the tool name. Conciseness without substance is not beneficial.

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 tool has an output schema, return values are not needed, but the description lacks context on when to use this tool, parameter semantics, and how it differs from siblings. It is incomplete for an agent to correctly select and invoke it.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The 'query' and 'k' parameters are not described at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. The default for k (5) is in the schema but not clarified as the number of results.

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 'Query the RAG knowledge base' provides a clear verb and resource, but it is generic and does not distinguish from the sibling 'query_rag_with_fallback'. It lacks specificity about the query type (e.g., semantic search).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query_rag_with_fallback' or 'seed_faq'. There are no usage conditions, when-not, or contexts provided.

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