who_knows

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: the return contents (authored/reviewed counts, recency) and the empty-case sentinel "not_in_graph". It does not address permissions, cost, or whether the underlying graph may be stale.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: purpose first, then usage triggers, then the empty-result caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, but the description covers purpose, usage, return fields, and the no-match case, which is enough for an agent to call it. The notable gap is the undocumented limit/tenant parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly clarifies "topic" (module or area) but says nothing about "limit" (default 6) or "tenant", leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it identifies who holds knowledge for a module/area and enumerates the returned fields (authored/reviewed counts, recency). This is concrete, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-siblings like knowledge_map or keystones.

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?

"Use for 'who knows about X', 'who owns X'" gives clear trigger phrasings, so an agent can recognize the intent quickly. It offers no when-not guidance or named alternatives among the many sibling graph tools.

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