KB Cleanup Plan

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

The description explicitly confirms read-only behavior ('Read-only') and reiterates that the server writes nothing, which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It adds value by explaining the split: tool classifies, agent acts. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the workflow.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core function and read-only nature. The second sentence clarifies the agent's role. Excellent conciseness.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), so return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers the main function and workflow. It does not address edge cases (e.g., no duplicates), but the structure is adequate given the annotations and schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description uses 'workspace/component' but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no new parameter semantics.

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's purpose: classify local docs against KB content and return thin-pointer replacements for duplicates. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kb_search and kb_propose_edit by focusing on analysis rather than retrieval or proposal.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating that the agent applies edits locally. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide scenarios where it should not be used. The context is clear but lacks explicit directives.

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