IMO this is one of the bigger dilemmas in RPGaming altogether.
If you are playing a role, then should your decisions for the character be based entirely from the perspective of the character itself?
There's a few schools of thought. Lots of D&D players find it totally normal to never use metal weapons on a rust monster even though there have been no rolls to determine if the character knows about it or if it's the first time the character has encountered one. The D&D player doesnt want their metal weapons ruined, so since the PLAYER knows the monster will ruin the weapon, it's somewhat accepted that suddenly the character will arbitrarily adjust based on this knowledge. This is normal for hardcore D&D players. I think it's kinda lame and metagamey
Though, this above behavior is far less welcome in WoD, where there is more theme-policing. Just because you've seen or read of the Niktuku in the book doesn't mean your PC knows about them. This is why some editions of WoD have lore skills you can buy.
So, what I'm getting at is: Sometimes I feel like the perspective gets lost. PLAYERS are trying things through their characters, but the CHARACTERS may not know what the PLAYER knows. This is why search/learning rolls are important; they help define what knowledge the PC has to work with. Otherwise some dungeons/missions just become a bunch of PLAYERS doing an escape room using PCs as marionettes to perform the task.
I have been able to solve this issue by focusing on perception/knowledge rolls to help feed information or determine what the PCs know. This leads to successes and my players have stopped trying to "guess what the GM is up to" and now focus on "the PCs solving the puzzle". BUT AS A GM YOU HAVE GOT TO REMEMBER TO MAKE THEM ROLL WHEN THEY HAVE THEIR PCS TRY SOMETHING.
Do you know where it is? Is it missing?"