kb.index

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

The description discloses the atomic replace behavior and the dual nature of the operation (read vs. write). However, it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden—it covers the key behavioral traits but lacks some depth.

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 three sentences, each with a clear purpose: stating the function, explaining the usage pattern, and providing strategic context. There is no redundancy or filler. The information is front-loaded effectively.

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 has only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, usage, and relationship to sibling tools. It lacks details on return format and error handling, but those are partially compensated by the schema and the tool's simplicity. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 100% (both parameters described in the schema). The description adds significant value by clarifying how the optional 'content' parameter controls the operation (omit to fetch, provide to replace). For 'project_id', the description adds no additional context beyond the schema, but the overall parameter semantics are well clarified.

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 the tool reads or replaces the wiki index page, specifying the source. It distinguishes itself from sibling kb.* tools by explicitly noting it is the index used as a navigation entry point, and by mentioning regeneration after kb.add/update/delete operations.

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 usage instructions: call with no content to fetch, with content to replace. It also provides strategic guidance on when to use the tool: read before searching, regenerate after modifications. This effectively differentiates it from siblings like kb.search and kb.add/update/delete.

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