kb_status

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

Describes what the tool returns in both modes (notes by type, stale counts, per-path freshness). No annotations exist, so description carries burden; it is transparent about the query nature, though it does not explicitly state it is read-only.

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?

Two sentences, each covering a distinct mode (no paths vs. with paths). No wasted words; highly efficient.

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, the description clearly specifies what is returned for both invocation modes (overview counts, per-path freshness). For a tool with one optional parameter, this is sufficiently 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?

The schema provides a description for the single parameter 'paths'. The tool description adds context by explaining the behavior difference and the concept of 'anchored notes' and 'freshness', adding value beyond the schema.

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Clearly states the tool provides a notebook overview with counts by type and stale/superseded status, and describes an alternative mode for specific paths. Distinguishes from siblings like 'kb_search' (likely searches content) by focusing on status and anchoring.

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 says when to pass the 'paths' parameter ('a quick is anything known here? check') and implies using without paths for a full overview. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives among siblings, but the context is clear enough.

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