haops_rag_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It identifies the tool as a retrieval operation (read-only), but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, idempotent, or mention any side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but lacks richness.

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 plus an example. Every word adds value, no redundancy. The key information is front-loaded (hybrid retrieval, top-K chunks, entity citations), making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is brief. It describes the output as 'chunks with entity citations' but does not detail the format, pagination, or behavior when no results are found. While the example provides concrete usage, the description lacks sufficient detail for a fully complete understanding of the tool's output.

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 100%, with each parameter well-described. The description adds an example that demonstrates parameter usage (projectSlug, text, topK) and implies the hybrid mode default. This provides additional semantic context beyond the schema, earning a score above the baseline of 3.

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 performs hybrid BM25+vector retrieval over a HAOps corpus, returning top-K chunks with entity citations. The example reinforces its purpose. Among siblings, it is the only RAG query tool, distinguishing it from CRUD and other search tools like search_discussion and search_help.

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 includes an example demonstrating typical usage, which implies context. However, it does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternative search tools (e.g., search_discussion or search_help) or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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