Recalculate and write back the statistics table in _INDEX.md from chapter files, keeping the update idempotent. Use it to keep knowledge base index counts consistent.
把 _INDEX.md 的统计表按章节文件重算回写（幂等）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful traits: the operation mutates _INDEX.md (a write, not a read) and it is 幂等 (idempotent), so re-running is safe. However it says nothing about preconditions (must chapter files exist?), failure behavior, or whether other index content is touched.
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?
A single compact sentence with the target (_INDEX.md statistics table) and the mechanism (recompute from chapter files) front-loaded, plus the idempotency qualifier in parentheses. Zero wasted tokens.
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 zero-argument tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, which file it mutates, and that the operation is repeatable. The remaining gap is the operational trigger — when in the kb workflow this should be invoked relative to kb_validate/kb_chapter.
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 takes zero parameters and the schema confirms this with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies; no parameter-level value could be added.
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 states a concrete verb pair (重算回写 = recalculate and write back) and a concrete resource (_INDEX.md's statistics table), which is far more specific than the bare name kb_reconcile. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from neighbors like kb_validate or kb_overview, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: the mention of recalculating from 章节文件 (chapter files) hints it should run after chapter content changes, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many kb_* siblings. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the trigger condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.