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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: inventory items are paged and next_cursor must be fed back as cursor. It does not mention limits, failure modes, or empty results, keeping it below 5.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The pagination and id-source sentences are densely packed but each carries distinct information. The clause 'the facts that prove it' is slightly vague for the space it occupies.

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 values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the paging protocol and id provenance, which are the two things an agent cannot infer. Only limit and layer_id semantics are left to guesswork.

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%, so the description carries the load, and it explains cursor (pass next_cursor back) and where section_id comes from. layer_id and limit are left completely unexplained, so half the parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one section') and describes the payload ('what was detected, and the facts that prove it'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It also separates itself from siblings by naming kb_list_layers, kb_search and kb_overview as the sources of section ids. It stops short of 5 because what a 'section' is within a layer is never clarified.

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?

Gives clear context for use: retrieve one section once you have its id, and obtain ids from kb_list_layers, kb_search or kb_overview. It also tells the agent how to continue paging. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative retrieval path is given, so it is not a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that per-layer detection counts are returned, which is modest added context; it does not clarify what 'detected' means or how layers are ordered or scoped.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the ambiguity noted in purpose and usage.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essentials; return values need not be explained. The undefined notion of a 'layer' and 'detected' keeps it from being fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information for the description to add or omit.

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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (layers of the knowledge base), plus a hint at the payload ('how much each one detected'). It is distinguishable from kb_status/kb_overview only weakly, and the term 'detected' is left undefined, so it falls short of a fully unambiguous 5.

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 no indication of when to call this instead of kb_status, kb_overview, or kb_search, and states no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context — that this is a consolidated single-answer snapshot rather than a query — but says nothing about freshness, caching, or cost of the call.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The content summary comes first and the call-ordering imperative is placed last, where it is most likely to be acted on.

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-value detail need not be restated. For a parameterless overview tool the description covers what it returns and when to call it; only freshness/staleness guidance 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 names the resource (project overview) and enumerates its contents — stack, variants, modules, testing — so an agent knows exactly what comes back and can distinguish it from kb_search or kb_get_section. It lacks an explicit verb, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

"Call this first" is an explicit, actionable ordering directive that tells the agent when to reach for this tool over its siblings. It gives no when-not-to-use condition or named alternative, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the write/idempotent profile is covered structurally; the description usefully adds the latency characteristic of a scan, which is not in the annotations. It stops short of saying what the rescan rebuilds, whether existing content is replaced or preserved, or whether concurrent searches block during the scan.

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?

Two sentences, the action first and the trigger condition second, with no filler. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 existence of an output schema means return values need not be described, and the trigger/precondition is fully covered. However, for a tool exposing two undocumented optional parameters, the description leaves a real hole — the agent knows when to call it but not how to tune it.

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% — 'force' and 'evidence_limit' have titles and defaults but no meaning anywhere. The description never mentions either parameter, so an agent cannot tell what forcing a rescan changes or what an evidence limit controls, and must guess or omit them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rescan the repository') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling kb_status by naming it as the gate for invocation. An agent can tell what this does and when it is the right tool without opening any schema.

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?

'Only needed when kb_status reports the knowledge base as missing or stale' gives an explicit precondition and implies the when-not case (healthy knowledge base). It also supplies a cost caveat ('a scan of a large project takes a few seconds') that helps the agent decide whether to invoke now or defer.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing behavioral beyond that — no mention of ranking, result limits, or how the limit parameter affects behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the inline examples earn their space by showing the agent exactly what query strings are valid.

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?

A read-only search tool with an output schema and safety annotations needs little more, but the undocumented layer_id scoping and limit default are real gaps for a tool where narrowing results matters. Return values correctly need not be described since an output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. It meaningfully clarifies the required 'query' parameter with NL and identifier examples, but 'limit' and especially 'layer_id' scoping are left completely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the knowledge base') and clarifies the two accepted query modes with concrete examples ('how are UI tests run', 'Hilt', 'testInstrumentationRunner'). It reads clearly against retrieval siblings like kb_get_section, though it does not explicitly name when to prefer it over kb_overview or kb_get_section.

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 kb_overview, kb_get_section, or kb_list_layers. Nothing tells the agent which situations call for a search versus a direct section fetch, leaving the routing decision entirely to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful notion of 'current' (staleness detection), but says nothing about whether verification is expensive, whether it hits an external source, or what a stale result implies.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though that efficiency comes partly at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 values need no explanation. However, the undefined verify_content flag and the absent routing guidance against kb_refresh leave gaps for an agent choosing between status-check and refresh.

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?

One parameter (verify_content) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. With a single unexplained parameter that plausibly changes cost/behavior, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('knowledge base') with two concrete conditions: existence and currency. An agent can distinguish it from kb_refresh (which mutates) and kb_search, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 statement of when to call this versus kb_refresh, kb_overview, or kb_list_layers, despite obvious overlap with a refresh/overview toolset. The reader must infer that this is a cheap pre-flight check.

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