knowledge_context

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as retrieval behavior, output scope, or parameter interactions, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 extremely short and under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It is a noun phrase with no structure, offering minimal value for a tool with 14 parameters.

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 complex tool with 14 parameters and multiple modes, this description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the modes, parameter semantics, or how to choose settings, leaving the agent without sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 7%, and the description does not compensate. The phrase 'Evidence/gaps, pages, search, and graph' only loosely maps to the mode enum and provides no meaning for the 13 other parameters like query, intent, max_depth, or retrieval_profile.

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 'Evidence/gaps, pages, search, and graph' lists content areas but lacks a verb or explicit action, so it does not clearly state what the tool does. It vaguely hints at functionality without distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like knowledge_page or knowledge_document_context. There are no usage scenarios, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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