knitbrain_self_check

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

The description details what the tool does (re-scan graph, auto-heal, confirm workflow, flag learnings, report write-gate state) and notes that auto-fixes may be applied and residual gaps remain. Without annotations, it does not specify potential side effects, permissions needed, or safety considerations like concurrent execution. Adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

The description is a single paragraph that efficiently conveys all necessary information without unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and lists specific checks in a structured manner. Every sentence adds value, making it concise and well-organized.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and zero parameters, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns (PASS/FAIL table, fixes, residual gaps), and how it relates to existing detectors. Although there is no output schema, the return format is adequately described.

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 has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds significant meaning by explaining the tool's purpose and behavior, which is essential for a parameterless tool. It fully compensates for the lack of schema detail.

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 explicitly states the tool runs a comprehensive self-check of the brain's anti-* invariants in one pass, listing specific checks like anti-stale, Gap-E resolve, anti-drift, anti-sycophancy, and write-gate state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like knitbrain_scan or knitbrain_read, which serve different purposes.

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 indicates the tool is used for a self gap-check and composes existing detectors, implying it's a routine health check. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Lacks explicit when/when-not guidance, but context is clear.

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