kb_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the diagnostic nature and the resolution sources it inspects, implying a read-only probe, but never states explicitly that it has no side effects or that it requires no auth/setup. For a zero-parameter read tool the risk is low, so this is adequate but thin.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The what (which roots resolve, where notes go) is front-loaded ahead of the when-to-use condition.

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 detail is unnecessary, and the description supplies the purpose and the triggering scenario. Given the trivial input surface, little else is needed; only an explicit read-only/no-side-effects statement would close the remaining gap.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly introduces no parameter concepts and instead spends its words on what gets reported.

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?

States a specific verb (Report) and a precise resource: which knowledge-base roots resolve and where new notes land. The parenthetical (repo checkout / packaged seed / UOS_HOME) makes the output scope concrete and distinguishes it from siblings like kb_search or kb_index.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition — 'Use when kb_search comes back empty and you need to know why' — which routes the agent correctly and names the related tool. It lacks a when-not clause or mention of kb_check/kb_index as alternatives, so it stops short of a full routing guide.

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