search_knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search scope but does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or whether it requires authentication or has rate limits. The output format or pagination behavior is not hinted at despite the 'limit' parameter.

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 sentence that concisely conveys the tool's action and scope. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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 two parameters (one required), no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how results are returned, whether there are advanced search options, or how the tool handles ambiguous queries. The absence of usage examples or behavioral notes makes it insufficient for an agent to use confidently.

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 needed to compensate but adds minimal meaning. It does not clarify what constitutes a valid 'query' (e.g., free text, field-specific patterns) or the effect of 'limit' (maximum results, default behavior). The description simply restates the tool's purpose without explaining parameter semantics.

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's action ('Search weclapp API knowledge') and scope ('across entities, fields, endpoints, and relationships'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'explain_entity' and 'explain_endpoint' by being a general search rather than a focused explanation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'get_relationships' or 'explain_data_location'.

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 alternative sibling tools. It does not specify scenarios where this broad search is preferred over more specialized tools like 'explain_entity' or 'plan_cross_entity_read'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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