kb_governance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It names the two returned artifacts, notes the conditional existence of schema.yaml, and states that no bases are currently available. It does not cover errors or output formatting, but for a simple retrieval tool the behavioral information is sufficient.

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?

Three concise sentences with the core return behavior front-loaded. The final sentence about available bases is short but potentially relevant. Minor awkwardness, but no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter and no output schema. The description covers what is returned, when to use it, and current availability. Missing explicit error or response-shape details, but these are not critical for a one-parameter retrieval tool.

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 input schema already documents the single 'base' parameter at 100% coverage, including that it is the manifest `name` field. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 states a clear verb ('Retourne') and a specific resource: governance rules from GOVERNANCE.md and the frontmatter schema from schema.yaml. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by tying it to the governance/proposal workflow rather than generic reading.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: read before submitting via kb_propose and essential for the manager role. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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