Knowledge Base

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

Annotations already flag destructive behavior, and the description adds crucial specifics: delete cannot be undone, a lost encryption key makes the store unrecoverable by design, and all responses are wrapped in a [OK]/[ERROR] JSON envelope. This goes meaningfully beyond the annotation flags and matches them without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core operation list and every sentence serves a purpose: usage, exclusions, destructive warnings, parameter routing, and output format. It is dense and moderately long, but this is justified given 15 parameters and multiple actions; still, the density requires careful parsing.

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 high-complexity tool with no output schema, the description covers operations, when to use them, forbidden uses, destructive consequences, encryption specifics, parameter mapping, and the response envelope. It does not specify the exact response shape for list/stats/get, and the source_url/url naming inconsistency remains a small gap. Overall, quite complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful action-to-parameter routing (query for search, text for ingest, source_url for get/delete) and report-ingest guidance, but it also references a 'url' parameter for ingest that does not actually exist in the schema—ingest URLs are handled by source_url. This minor inaccuracy undercuts the added value.

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?

Description begins with a specific verb ('Manage') and a clear resource ('local knowledge base'), then enumerates the exact operations: search, ingest, list, get, stats, delete, and encryption. It distinguishes itself from external-tool siblings by explicitly scoping to 'local' content and later naming web_search and fetch_page as the external alternatives.

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 'Use when...' guidance for archiving reports, revisiting stored content, and managing encryption keys. It also gives a clear 'Do NOT use for...' exclusion with named sibling tools (web_search and fetch_page), so an agent knows when to route elsewhere.

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