search_knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns titles and summary snippets and covers both files and folders. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (despite a cursor parameter), potential limitations, or whether it is strictly read-only, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the action and result in the first sentence. The second sentence adds value by confirming its role as the core interface. No unnecessary words.

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 search tool with schema-covered parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what it does and what it returns. It lacks details about pagination or usage limits, but these are not critical for basic invocation. The absence of an output schema is not a significant issue given the return description.

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 does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions keyword search, which is already implied by the 'query' parameter. No further parameter context is provided.

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's function: searching content by keyword in a specified knowledge base, including files and folders, and returning matched titles and summary snippets. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_knowledge_base', so it falls short of a 5.

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 clear usage context by calling this the 'core interface for knowledge base content retrieval', implying it is the primary tool for this task. However, it does not mention explicit exclusions or alternative tools, so it lacks full when/when-not guidance.

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