KI-søk i katalogen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses expected latency ('Bruker rundt 4 sekunder'), default scope ('Søker i datasett med mindre du setter type'), query constraints, and the ranked-with-justification return style. This is substantial context beyond raw functionality.

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?

Four tight sentences, each earning its place: function, use case, constraints, latency, and default scope. Front-loaded with the core action and outcome. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, defaults, behavior, latency, and intended scenario. It could mention result-count or error behavior, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description's mention of '3–255 tegn' and 'helst norsk' largely restates schema constraints and query description. It adds the default-scope clarification, but baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Still et spørsmål i naturlig språk') and a concrete outcome ('få rangerte ressurser tilbake, hver med en begrunnelse'), clearly distinguishing it from a generic search. It also offers an explicit use case ('Start her når du ikke vet hva datasettet heter') that separates it from sibling tools like get_resource or 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?

The description tells the agent when to use this tool ('når du ikke vet hva datasettet heter') and why it fits over technical alternatives ('Krever ingen fagtermer'). It does not enumerate alternatives or say 'don't use when X', but the guidance is concrete enough to route a call correctly.

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