kb_status

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

With readOnlyHint=true already in the annotations, the closing 'Read-only.' repeats structured data and earns no credit. The description does not disclose cost, output size, pagination, or whether a full-health scan is expensive, and idempotentHint=false is left unexplained.

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?

Content is dense but largely non-redundant, since every clause names a real output section, and 'KB health in one call' is front-loaded. However, it is delivered as one ~70-word comma-spliced run-on, and the trailing 'usage:' fragment reads like a stray header rather than prose.

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 exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly: counts, staleness, contradictions/gaps, git state, per-KB capability gates, ledger counts, search misses, versions, and conformance findings. The main omission is any sense of cost or expected size for what is effectively a full-KB aggregate scan.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty schema, and it does not mislead about inputs.

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 identifies the resource ('KB health') and enumerates its contents in detail, but never states an action verb such as 'get' or 'report'. It also never differentiates this tool from adjacent read tools like kb_repair, kb_review, conflicts_list, or validate. An agent can infer the intent, but the phrasing is a noun fragment rather than a crisp verb+resource statement.

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 only conditional guidance is 'When doctor_suggested is true, follow the kb-doctor skill', which governs what to do with the output rather than when to call kb_status at all. There is no statement of when to use this versus kb_repair, kb_review, conflicts_list, or validate, and no prerequisites are given.

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