entangled_query_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the scope (shared across all agent sessions, read-oriented) but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or how results are ranked or truncated, so it adds only partial behavioral context.

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?

Two tight sentences that are front-loaded: the search scope first, the trigger condition second. Nothing is wasted, aside from the bracketed [ENTANGLED] namespace marker that adds little semantic value.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so the description need not explain them, and it supplies the core search purpose and trigger. It remains thin on the four undocumented parameters and on default limit behavior, but is adequate to call the tool.

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 must compensate. The phrase "by topic, tag, or keyword" maps to the topic, tag, and query parameters, but it leaves limit undocumented and never explains whether multiple filters combine or what an empty string returns.

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 states a specific verb (searches) and a well-defined resource (shared knowledge across all agent sessions), plus the three axes it can search on (topic, tag, keyword). This clearly contrasts with the write-side sibling entangled_broadcast_knowledge, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

"Use this before tackling a task to check if another agent CLI has already investigated or solved it" gives an explicit trigger condition for invocation. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative to prefer in specific cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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