KB Bootstrap Project

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

Beyond the annotations (which indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive write), the description explains that high confidence leads to atomic commits while low confidence enqueues pending actions. This adds valuable behavioral context not present in annotations.

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, no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides the critical precondition and behavioral nuance. Every sentence earns 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the core behavior and precondition well. It does not explain return values or all parameter details, but the schema handles that. The missing status parameter mention might be incomplete for some agents.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by clarifying how the 'confidence' parameter changes behavior (atomic vs. pending), adding meaning not found in the schema description alone.

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 performs bootstrapping for a new workspace/component. The verb 'Bootstrap' and resource specification are precise. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kb_propose_edit or kb_get by implying it's for initial creation, not editing or querying.

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 a clear precondition: 'Only valid when status=absent or partial.' This tells the agent when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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