AxKnowledgeBase_get_knowledge_base_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it fully discloses behavior: it returns aggregate statistics, sorts by entity label descending, and covers only the curated corpus. There are no hidden side effects or unspecified scoping concerns for this zero-parameter read operation.

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: the first states the operation and output, the second gives the use case, and the last draws the key distinction from the private-graph alternative. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 simple no-argument read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the ordering, the scope limitation, and the relevant alternative. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify semantically. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate because no additional parameter explanation 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 names a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a precise resource ('corpus-level statistics for Axiomatic's curated knowledge base'), and the concrete output (total node count and entity-label breakdown). It also distinguishes itself from the private-graph sibling by name, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use it ('getting oriented before searching', answering 'what's in the knowledge base') and gives an explicit exclusion: for the organization's private graph use get_private_knowledge_base_overview. This is clear routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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