knowledge_analyze

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full disclosure burden, yet it is internally contradictory on the consolidate action: the verb implies merging/mutation while the gloss '(find duplicates)' implies read-only discovery. There is no statement about whether any action mutates entries, what output shape results, or performance implications — a real gap for a multi-action analysis tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the whole description runs roughly 60 words with no filler. The trailing 'Actions:' enumeration is partially redundant with the schema enum but serves as a useful name→semantic mapping, earning its place.

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?

This is a complex tool — 9 parameters, 8 actions, no output schema, no annotations. All action semantics are enumerated, but the description is silent on per-action return formats and on whether any action (notably consolidate) has side effects, both material for an analysis surface of this breadth.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema's parameter descriptions are unusually rich (per-action defaults, the Jaccard rationale for group_similarity, min_count semantics). The tool description adds little beyond re-listing action names, so the schema-carrying baseline of 3 is correct.

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 enumerates eight distinct analyses with denotative glosses (duplicates, unconnected entries, god nodes, bridges, gaps, zero-result queries, stale-by-code-activity, brief), clearly binding the tool to knowledge-base entry analysis. This differentiates it from siblings like knowledge_search (querying) and knowledge_admin (admin actions) without needing to open a schema.

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?

Each action carries clear context, e.g., 'gaps (entries with 0-1 edges)', 'bridges (cross-cluster connectors)', and search_gaps is explicitly framed as 'the single best signal for what entries should I write next?'. Missing, however, are explicit when-not or alternative statements that route selection against sibling tools at the tool level.

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