check

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and idempotent, so the description does not need to cover safety. The description adds value by specifying exactly what the tool reports: checksum mismatches, orphan sections, broken references, and circular references.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the key output categories without any wasted words. It is compact, scannable, and informative.

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 parameterless, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, this description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool checks, what kinds of reports it returns, and annotations cover the behavioral safety aspects.

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 there is no input semantics to document. The description correctly focuses on behavior instead; a score of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Verify the integrity of the knowledge base.' It also enumerates what the verification produces, so an agent can immediately recognize both the purpose and the tool's output domain.

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 intended use is clear: perform this when integrity validation is needed. However, the description offers no guidance about when to prefer sibling tools like 'status', 'contradictions', or 'gaps', which may overlap with the listed report categories.

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