knowerage_reconcile_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool rescans files and rebuilds registry entries, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing entries, performance impact, idempotency). The description is adequate for the core behavior but lacks depth.

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 with zero wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the alternative is mentioned concisely. Structure is optimal for quick parsing.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter context. It does not mention a return value or confirmation, but that is acceptable given the lack of output schema. Slight room for improvement.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, with a detailed schema description. The tool description adds context that the glob is for 'analysis markdown files' and provides the default value, which is useful but not critical. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool rescans analysis markdown files matching a glob and rebuilds registry entries. It uses specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes from the sibling 'knowerage_reconcile_record' by noting when to prefer the alternative. Purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly provides usage context: 'Use after git pull, bulk edits, or when the registry may be empty or out of date.' Also gives exclusion: 'prefer reconcile_record when only one file changed.' This is exemplary guidance for an agent.

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