kb_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the lint checks for (required sections, binary dumps, media links), which is useful. However, it does not state whether lint failures block the PR, whether it mutates state, what permissions are needed, or what severity levels exist.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a specific instruction at the end. It is appropriately sized—no filler, no repetition. Minor room for improvement in separating the checks into a clearer list.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. However, for a lint tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete: it omits what constitutes a failure, how the note is supplied (file path vs. raw text), and whether the tool is read-only or mutates the note. These gaps matter for correct invocation.

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?

There is one parameter, "note," with 0% schema description coverage and no description in the input schema. The tool description does not explain the expected format (inline text vs. file path), length limits, or content expectations. With coverage this low, the description should compensate but does not.

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 uses a specific verb ("Lint") and resource ("field note"), and names the exact checks performed (required sections + prohibited-content scan). It is distinguishable from siblings like kb_new, kb_search, and kb_index, though it does not explicitly compare itself to them.

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?

It gives one explicit timing cue: "Run before opening a PR." That establishes a workflow context but does not explain when not to use it, nor does it name alternative sibling tools (e.g., kb_new, kb_index) that might be more appropriate for other note-related tasks.

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