Knowledge Base

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that 'delete' is destructive, that encryption operations have security implications (e.g., losing a key locks data), or any side effects like overwriting files. It mentions re-keying but not its consequences. This is a significant gap for a tool with 14 parameters and multiple operations.

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?

Two dense sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then gives a targeted use case. However, the list of actions is packed into one sentence and the encryption sentence is separate; a slightly more structured layout (e.g., bullet points) could improve scannability, but it's still concise.

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 tool with 7 actions, 14 parameters, and sub-operations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain which parameters are required for each action, how search differs from list/get, or what the encryption operations do beyond naming them. No output schema exists, so description should compensate by clarifying expected return types. It only covers the report-archiving workflow well.

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 93%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds one meaningful hint: pairing source_type 'report' with save_to 'kb' for archiving. However, it does not clarify per-action required parameters or the interplay between url/text/query, which the schema leaves ambiguous. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states 'Manage the local knowledge base' and enumerates the specific actions: search, ingest, list, get, stats, delete. It also gives a concrete use case (archive generated reports with ingest, revisit with list/get). This distinguishes it from siblings like infobroker_web_search and infobroker_fetch_page, which are about external content.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'use ingest with source_type 'report' and save_to 'kb' (default) to archive generated reports; use list/get to revisit them.' It also mentions the encryption sub-actions. However, it does not cover when to use other actions or explicit exclusions/alternatives, but the given guidance is actionable and relevant.

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