install_knowledge_base

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses network dependency ('uses the network'), approximate size and duration ('about 5 MB and can take several seconds'), the SHA-256 verification step, the rollback mechanism via 'release pins an exact kb-YYYY-MM-DD tag', and the no-network branch. This is unusually rich behavioral context for an install/mutate operation.

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?

Every sentence contributes information — download source, verification, size/latency, offline path, trigger conditions — and the primary action is front-loaded. It is somewhat dense and reads as one continuous block rather than clearly separated modes, which costs a point.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema, 3-parameter tool, the description covers inputs, network behavior, verification, and invocation triggers thoroughly. It does not mention what a successful invocation returns or how failures surface, a minor gap given there is no output schema to lean on.

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 must compensate, and it does: 'release pins an exact kb-YYYY-MM-DD tag, for rollback'; 'path (a .sqlite.xz or .sqlite copied from a release)'; 'sha256 (the value its SHA256SUMS lists)'. Each of the three parameters gets format and purpose beyond the bare schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('Install the prebuilt knowledge base this server answers from') and immediately scopes the default behavior (download newest release, verify SHA-256, install). It also differentiates itself from siblings by noting it is 'the only tool besides check_sources that uses the network.'

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Call this when another tool returns {"status": "not_ready"}, or when check_sources reports "install".' It also names the conditions under which the offline parameters apply ('On a host without network access, pass path ... and sha256'). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-the-alternative-mode are covered.

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