consolidate

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

The description explicitly discloses that the tool is non-destructive ('nothing of is merged') and that each group includes a 'weakest 'file link' in its output. It also goes beyond the annotations by stating a concrete limitation: without an 'entailment judge kbdb' cannot detect self-disagreement within a group. This is valuable behavioral context that the caller needs before relying on a proposal.

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 earns every sentence: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence reminder that no merging occurs, a one-sentence output feature, and a one-sentence critical warning. It is front-loaded and no redundant wording. Despite front-loading, it fits in under 30 words, giving it a strong signal/se to size ratio.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, this description is complete. It states what the output contains (proposed groups with weakest link), clarifies the side-effect-free nature, and gives a decisive fairness warning. An agent can safely invoke and interpret the tool without missing critical context.

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 description doesn't add much to parameter understanding beyond the schema, which already defines 'about' and 'limit' clearly and covers 100% of parameters. The body text does not explain how 'about' affects grouping or how 'limit' bounding, so it relies on parametric definitions. Schema coverage is high, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific action: it proposes groups of stored sections, not an actual merge. It concretely clarifies scope with 'Proposes ONLY — nothing is merged,' so an agent cannot confuse this with a mutating consolidation tool. The 'knowledge base ... become a few good ones' phrasing grounds the resource and use case, distinguishing this from search or revision tools.

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 a clear context for when to invoke the tool: when overlapping stored sections need to be reorganized into fewer, internally coherent groups. It also gives a crisp boundary: the tool never merges, so use it for proposals only. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the 'read every section before merging' warning helpfully tells the agent what follow-up caution is required.

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