sn_knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds almost nothing beyond listing action names — no note about what 'history' or 'cache' contain, whether saved_run executes arbitrary stored queries, or any limits/scope of results.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the action list is a flat comma-separated run-on with only two parenthetical hints. No wasted prose, yet the structure does not help the agent parse per-action behavior.

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 tool with eight actions, seven parameters, and no per-parameter documentation, the description is far too thin to support correct invocation — the agent cannot know, for example, that saved_run likely needs a name and note_read likely needs a key. The presence of an output schema excuses return-value detail, but not the action/parameter contract.

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% across seven parameters (key, body, name, limit, table, sys_id), and the description provides no mapping of which parameter applies to which action. The action enum values are already fully listed in the schema, so the description adds essentially no semantic content beyond structured data.

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 lead sentence 'Read what the server already knows' combined with the action list conveys a read-only knowledge-retrieval tool with eight sub-operations. However, it never distinguishes itself from read-oriented siblings like sn_read, sn_state, or sn_journal, so an agent cannot tell which namespace of 'knowledge' this covers without guessing.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling is named as an alternative. An agent facing sn_read, sn_state, sn_journal, and sn_knowledge has no basis in the description for choosing among them.

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