Resolve knowledge order

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds non-obvious behavior: filtered sources are omitted without reordering the remainder, count is post-filter, and it 'reads only the declaration, never source bodies' — meaningful operational context not derivable from annotations or schema.

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 return contract, then usage, then parameter semantics, then a closing read-scope caveat. Three sentences with no filler; every clause either routes the agent, defines the parameter, or discloses filtering behavior.

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-shape explanation is not required, and the description correctly focuses on when to call, when not to, and how clearance filtering behaves. For a zero-required-parameter read tool with an output schema, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the enum values are already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the ceiling semantics concretely — 'public keeps public sources, internal keeps public and internal, restricted keeps all' — and clarifying the omit behavior, which adds interpretive value beyond the enum list.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Return the declared knowledge-source query order and a contract-first flag'), naming exactly what is produced. It then explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming library_search, module_read, and asset_read as the tools for the jobs this one does not do.

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 states the trigger ('Use it before assembling or citing NF content') and two explicit exclusions with the correct alternatives ('do not use it to search documents (use library_search instead)', 'read module/asset bodies (module_read / asset_read)'). It also advises 'use public before republishing material', a concrete usage condition for the single parameter.

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