search_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool searches a RAG knowledge base; it does not mention whether results are ranked, whether it is read-only, what types of queries are supported, or any rate/access considerations. The verb 'search' implies a non-mutating operation, but little else is transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the operation and the target surface directly. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With no output schema, the description should give some indication of return values or result behavior, but it does not. It also lacks guidance on user_id scoping or how limit affects results. Given the 3-parameter search tool and no annotations, this description is too sparse to fully equip an agent to use the tool correctly in varied contexts.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds that the search targets the OpenMemory RAG knowledge base, giving the query parameter contextual meaning, but it does not explain limit or user_id semantics beyond their schema descriptions. The description adds marginal context but does not compensate beyond the baseline.

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 'Search the OpenMemory RAG knowledge base' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating this tool performs retrieval on a knowledge base. It is readily distinguishable from the import_* siblings, though it does not explicitly name them. Slightly vague about what type of content is searched, but otherwise clear.

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 implies usage for retrieval, and the sibling import tools imply this is the search counterpart. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over allernate approaches, no exclusions, and no mention of user_id filtering or limit usage. Usage context must be inferred from the tool name and schema.

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