biji_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format (AI-generated answers and citations) but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, latency, or cost implications, which are particularly relevant given the deep_seek option that may incur additional processing.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the core purpose and output. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 the tool has 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the one-sentence description is too sparse. It does not clarify whether the search is semantic or keyword-based, what input format the question should take, or any caveats about the AI-generated answers or reference handling, making it incomplete for a relatively complex 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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds minimal parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states, such as implying that with_refs controls citation sources.

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 uses the verb 'search' with a specific resource (Get Notes knowledge base) and describes the output (AI-generated answers and citation sources). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on search rather than recall or listing, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs. the sibling tools (biji_recall, biji_list_kb). The description only states the tool's function, not the circumstances or context in which it should be preferred over others.

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