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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the type of issues checked (structural errors, navigation-weakening warnings) but does not detail behavior like read-only nature, output format, or side effects. Lacks specifics that an agent would need to understand consequences.

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?

One sentence that is front-loaded and direct. Efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose and output).

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the validation result looks like (success, error list, warnings) or how to interpret them. For a validation tool, this is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines the single parameter 'manifest' as path/directory/URL. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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?

Clearly states the tool validates/lints a knowledge.yaml for structural errors and navigation-weakening warnings. The verb 'Validate (lint)' and resource 'knowledge.yaml' are specific and distinguish from siblings like kcp_load (load) and kcp_plan (plan).

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 implies use before loading or planning, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on exclusions (e.g., when not to use) or prerequisites.

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