kb_repair

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well: explicitly states the tool 'Returns a worklist, never a change', describes the empty-notebook sentinel ('Nothing to repair here.'), and clarifies that notes written before the fields were required are 'correct but unreachable' — disclosing the tool's non-destructive diagnostic nature. It doesn't over-claim error/rate behavior, but the safety profile (read-only worklist) is clearly conveyed.

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 well-organized sentences: purpose, what-it-returns/next-steps, and usage trigger. Every sentence earns its place with concrete, actionable detail. The key information (returns worklist, never a change; fix with kb_write passing id; merge semantics; empty-notebook sentinel) is front-loaded and complete.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is found, why notes are unfindable, what the tool does NOT do (doesn't repair), how to fix each issue (kb_write + id + merge), the clean-notebook output, and when to run it. No gaps remain.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. Per the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description adds no param-specific detail because none is needed.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('List the notebook notes') with a clear scope ('WRITTEN BUT UNFINDABLE'), and gives concrete examples of what makes a note unfindable (missing identityAliases, anchor symbols, verified paths). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by framing it as a diagnostic/worklist tool rather than a search or write tool.

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?

Explicitly states when to run it ('when the user asks to repair, fix, or clean up the notebook') and contrasts with kb_write ('Fix each one with kb_write'). It also warns that repairing is the user's (agent's) work, requiring judgement about code, and clarifies the tool returns a worklist never a change. The merge semantics are stated so the agent knows replays don't lose data.

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