kb_stats

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the output elements but does not mention performance, required permissions, or side effects. As a stat retrieval tool, it is likely safe, but lacks explicit reassurance.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key outputs. Could be improved by structuring or clarifying terms like 'identity', but overall efficient.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete for its simplicity. However, it does not address how this tool relates to sibling tools, leaving some contextual gap.

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 100% (no parameters). Baseline score of 3 applies as the description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 it returns index counts, identity, timestamps, and resolved local directories, indicating a read-only stats tool. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like kb_search, kb_get_document, kb_list_documents, and 'identity' is vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied for getting overall knowledge base stats, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.

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