kb_read

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'read' without noting whether the operation is non-destructive, what the response contains, or what happens when chunk_id is omitted. It adds no behavioral context beyond the bare action.

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 a single concise sentence with a clear front-loaded verb and no filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple, and the output schema covers return values. The description adequately covers the basic operation, but it omits usage context relative to sibling tools and edge-case behavior, leaving moderate ambiguity for an agent deciding between reading and searching.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. The phrase 'or a specific indexed chunk' usefully implies that document_id selects the document and chunk_id selects a chunk within it. However, it does not explain defaults, optionality behavior, or any format details.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('one indexed document or a specific indexed chunk'). It clearly distinguishes the read operation from the sibling search/context/status tools by naming the exact object being read, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kb_search or kb_project_context. It only states what the tool does and leaves the selection entirely to inference, which is a meaningful gap given the presence of sibling tools.

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