kb_repair_aliases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly: explains the pagination shrink behavior, the aliasesVerified mechanic that stops reappearance, the resurfacing of hidden aliases on the next fold, and the exact return string 'No file/flow notes to reconcile.' Also warns about stale nextOffset silently skipping entries. Exceptionally transparent about behavioral edge cases.

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?

The description is thorough but densely packed with genuinely useful operational detail. It front-loads the core purpose first, then branches into reconciliation workflow and pagination caveats. Each sentence earns its place, though it's long enough that a lighter-weight summary of the critical warnings could improve scannability.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, this description compensates fully. It covers the return value ('No file/flow notes to reconcile.'), pagination behavior, workflow dependencies (kb_write, aliasesVerified flag), and edge-case pitfalls. For a complex reconciliation tool with no structured metadata support, this is exceptionally complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema: it explicitly warns about the offset pitfall ('do NOT increment this across calls once you start marking notes aliasesVerified') and clarifies that offset is for browsing only, while reconciled notes auto-drop. This is useful semantic depth beyond what the schema description states.

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 states precisely what the tool does: lists file/flow notes whose identityAliases have gone stale, explicitly distinguishes it from kb_repair (no aliases at all vs. stale aliases). The verb 'List' plus the specific resource (file/flow notes with stale identityAliases) is specific and immediately differentiated from the sibling kb_repair.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to: 'a DIFFERENT problem from kb_repair' naming the exact alternative. Also gives explicit operational guidance: don't increment offset while reconciling, call again with offset 0, never retract mechanically, end every kb_write with aliasesVerified:true. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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