origin_query_knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'search by keyword' without explaining outcomes, return format, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. Essential behavioral details are missing.

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 sentence, which is concise in length, but it lacks structure to cover necessary details. It is front-loaded with the core action, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. It could be expanded slightly to include parameter context without losing conciseness.

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 and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention what the search returns (despite an output schema existing), how optional parameters affect results, or any limitations. A user would need to infer too much.

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 0%, requiring the description to explain parameters. The description only hints at the 'query' parameter via 'by keyword', but ignores 'collection', 'version', and 'limit'. No meaning is added for these parameters beyond their names and types.

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 searches the local Origin knowledge base by keyword. It identifies the verb 'search', resource 'knowledge base', and method 'by keyword'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like origin_browse_knowledge, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as origin_browse_knowledge. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or how it differs from similar tools.

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