audit_knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, what the output/report format is, or whether any permissions are required. The word 'validate' implies a check but the concrete behavior remains underspecified.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly 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 the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It conveys the action and scope but omits expected outputs, safety profile, and any conditions that might trigger use. While simplicity helps, an audit tool would benefit from explaining what the validation result looks like or if it's safe to run.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers everything. According to the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4, and no extra description is needed for parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Validate'), specifies the resource ('knowledge fragments'), and clarifies scope ('all') and the focus ('broken refs and related links'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search, add, or 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or any alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or relation to other tools such as update_knowledge or reload_sources.

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