kb_log

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the key traits — the operation is additive ('append'), non-destructive of prior content, and targets a fixed path — but says nothing about whether the meta directory is created if absent, whether lines are timestamped, or whether failures raise errors.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the path in parentheses as useful supporting detail. No filler; the only shortfall is that the budget was spent entirely on 'what' with nothing on 'when'.

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 one-parameter append-only logging tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential what and where, so an agent can call it. Gaps remain on line format, directory creation side effects, and when logging is expected, which matter because there are no annotations to fall back on.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single 'message' parameter is never described. The description doesn't say whether message should be plain prose, whether newlines are allowed, or whether it is prefixed/formatted. The self-evident parameter name limits the damage, but no compensation is provided.

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?

Specific verb ('Append') plus a specific resource ('a line to the organize log') and even the concrete target path (.mcp_meta/organize.log). This clearly separates it from read/search/mutation siblings like kb_read_document or kb_move_file, though it never explicitly names a sibling it contrasts with.

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?

There is no statement of when an agent should call this versus doing nothing or using another tool, nor any precondition (e.g. 'call after a successful organize operation'). Usage is only inferable from the word 'log'.

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