kb_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety restatement earns little credit. The description does add real context beyond the structured fields: damaged stores are diagnosed without starting the engine, meaning it works in a degraded state where other tools may not -- useful behavioral knowledge not encoded in annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary purpose, then usage, then safety caveat in three dense sentences with no filler. The catalogue of reported artifacts and the 'kibi.migration-plan.v2' token are slightly jargon-heavy, but each clause carries information an agent needs.

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 values need not be spelled out, and annotations already carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, triggers, alternatives, and degraded-store behavior; the only untouched element is the workspaceRoot override, which the schema itself handles.

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?

Only one optional parameter (workspaceRoot) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the worktree/mismatch fallback semantics. The description adds nothing about that parameter, so baseline 3 applies rather than a higher score.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (report current branch, KB snapshot, freshness metadata, schema status) and even the payload shape (typed kibi.migration-plan.v2 action graph). It explicitly distinguishes itself from kb_check (validation findings) and kb_coverage (proof status), so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 concrete trigger conditions -- "call it first to orient on a branch or after a failed call" -- and routes two adjacent needs to named alternatives (kb_check, kb_coverage). This is explicit when-to-use plus alternative selection, not inferred.

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