contribute_kb_finding

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains that the tool stages findings as GitHub issues, that application happens at the next session start, and that it returns a formatted issue body plus the exact gh CLI command. It could further clarify whether it actually creates the GitHub issue or only prepares the command, and what GitHub authentication is required.

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?

The description is long but well-organized: trigger, mechanism, return value, finding_type options, then parameter list. Each block adds necessary information, and the most important usage rule is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the trigger, all parameter semantics, the side-effect model, and the return value, even though no output schema exists. Minor gaps remain around exact GitHub-related prerequisites and whether the gh command is executed by the tool or left for the agent to run.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter with its purpose, example values, and the finding_type enumeration with concrete meanings and target files. This is exactly the context an agent needs to construct valid arguments.

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?

Description opens with a concrete trigger ('Call this whenever you discover a gap while working in any repo') and states the exact resource targets: the knowledge base, HSM command registry, proxy handler list, and compliance rules. It is clearly distinct from the sibling KMS/HSM tools, which operate on keys and HSM commands rather than recording findings for later application.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with inclusion criteria ('discover a gap', 'belongs in this MCP server's knowledge base...') and clarifies the tool works without AWS credentials. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the siblings are direct substitutes, so the omission is minor.

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