knowledge_maintain

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

The description discloses the read-only nature and outlines three analysis branches, which is helpful. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or output structure. The read-only claim is clear, but deeper behavioral traits are missing.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and branching structure, then a practical pairing note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and three branches, but lacks details on output format (no output schema) and specifics for the misfile audit branch. Given the complexity and 30 sibling tools, more context on return values and branch details would improve completeness.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds little new detail. It does conceptually map parameters to branches (e.g., cold_days to cold pages), but this is implicit. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 this is a 'Read-only health report for the knowledge store' with three specific branches: expansion candidates, cold pages, and misfile audit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like knowledge_write by pairing with it for acting on findings, making the purpose very specific and differentiated.

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 explicitly notes it is 'read-only' and suggests pairing with knowledge_write to act on findings, providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternative tools for similar tasks (e.g., knowledge_recall for retrieval), leaving some ambiguity.

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