FleetQ

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

With empty annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It does not explain side effects of delete (permanent vs soft), what ingest actually does (chunking, embedding, indexing limitations), or what search returns. No mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or multi-tenancy constraints.

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?

Single sentence format is efficient and front-loaded with the primary verb. Dense parenthetical enumeration saves space but sacrifices readability—a bullet list or clearer action-parameter mapping would improve scannability without adding verbosity.

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 complex 13-parameter multi-action tool (CRUD + search + ingest) with no output schema and empty annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits return value structures, error conditions, and the cross-parameter dependencies implied by the unusual 'required' array (where parameters are required at schema level but not applicable to all actions).

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description maps parameters to actions parenthetically (e.g., 'ingest (knowledge_base_id, content/url)'), which provides usage grouping but adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions. Slight confusion: implies a 'url' parameter exists when the schema uses source_type='url' with content field.

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 the general domain ('Manage knowledge bases') and enumerates specific actions (list, create, ingest, search, delete), providing clarity on capabilities. However, 'Manage' is a vague verb and the description fails to distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like memory_manage, artifact_manage, or profile_manage.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., memory_manage for ephemeral context vs knowledge_manage for persistent bases). While it maps actions to parameter groups parenthetically, it lacks explicit prerequisites, success criteria, or warnings about when not to use specific actions.

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