inspect-knowledge-base

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation via 'inspect' and 'view', but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what exactly gets inspected (e.g., collection list, metadata, sample entries), or whether there are any side effects. This lack of disclosure is a notable gap.

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-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by a practical use case. There is no redundant information, and every word contributes value.

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 simple inspection tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage scenarios. It doesn't need to explain return values in detail because an output schema is present, though stating the read-only nature would have made it more 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?

The schema fully describes the only parameter (collection_name with a default from env), and the description's reference to 'collection settings' aligns with the parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal extra value but is consistent with the 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 clearly states the tool 'inspects' the 'knowledge base configuration' and 'view sample data', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that store, search, get by ID, or delete knowledge. It is specific about what the tool does and what resource it operates on.

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 says it is 'useful for debugging collection settings or verifying stored content', providing clear use cases. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is easily inferred from the sibling tool names.

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