Search the XKnow knowledge base

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 the return shape (ranked notes with snippet and URL), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or how ranking is determined. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and scope before the usage hint. Every sentence contributes; the only minor redundancy is the restatement of the SEO/SaaS/AI domain in the third sentence.

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 simple 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, corpus scope, and return values, compensating for the absence of an output schema. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation against four related tools.

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%, so all three parameters (query, limit, section) are already fully documented with examples and enum values. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and a named resource (curated, source-backed SEO/SaaS/LLM-wiki knowledge) with clear scope. It distinguishes itself from generic search by naming the corpus, though it does not explicitly separate itself from siblings like explore_concept or list_topics.

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 to ground answers about..." gives implied context for retrieval use, which is helpful. However, it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and never contrasts with the four sibling tools (get_page, explore_concept, list_topics, cite), leaving alternative selection to inference.

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