rsi_knowledge_add

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, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether new items are pending review, deduplicated, indexed for recall, or what permissions are needed. For a write tool with 10 parameters and a review sibling (rsi_knowledge_review), the absence of lifecycle context is a real gap.

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?

Short and front-loaded with zero padding beyond the bilingual repetition, which duplicates the same sentence rather than adding information. The size is appropriate, but the second sentence earns no new content.

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?

With 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, an agent still cannot tell what happens after a successful add or how optional fields like trigger_condition and expiry_condition interact with the record's lifecycle. The description is far too thin for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description only repeats the two required ones. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds no interpretation of conditional fields like pack_id or expiry_condition 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a knowledge item') and names the two required fields, which is enough to distinguish it from rsi_knowledge_update and rsi_knowledge_delete. It does not, however, differentiate it from rsi_memory or rsi_learn, which could plausibly also write knowledge.

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?

There is no guidance on when to add a new item versus updating an existing one (rsi_knowledge_update) or when this tool is appropriate at all. The only condition mentioned is that title and content are required, which is already in the schema.

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