kb_review

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the read-only nature is already covered. The description adds an item field list, but the 'Dismiss' clause is cryptic — it is unclear whether this tool performs the dismissal or merely documents the lint_ignore convention, which is exactly the kind of ambiguity an agent needs resolved. No pagination or ordering behavior is explained.

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?

Very short, but terse to the point of being cryptic: two sentence fragments with no subject, and 'kb-doctor' and the Dismiss clause are unexplained. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

No output schema, no enum hints, and 0% schema coverage, so the description must carry the burden — yet it omits what the ranking means, how paging works, and what Dismiss actually does. For a four-parameter tool with no required fields this is inadequate.

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 0% for all four parameters (kind, limit, scope, offset). The description only loosely gestures at 'kind' (as an item field and inside lint_ignore) and never mentions limit, offset, or scope, so the parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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?

"Ranked kb-doctor work list" names a resource and a ranking behavior, and the item shape {kind, concepts, evidence, suggested_action} is disclosed. But it never states what this tool does in plain terms (return a prioritized list of kb issues?) and doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like work_list, lint, or 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?

No guidance on when to call this versus work_list, lint, or kb_repair. The only procedural note is about dismissing items, which is a downstream action rather than a use case for invoking this tool.

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