KB Gate Check

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

Annotations all false, suggesting potential side effects, but the description describes a read-only operation (returning a verdict). No clarification on whether the tool modifies state, requires authentication, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic return of a verdict.

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, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.

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 description is minimal given the tool has 5 parameters, an output schema not described, and 17 sibling tools. It does not explain the output schema or provide sufficient context to differentiate from siblings like kb_audit or kb_compliance.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'pending code action' loosely ties to tool_name, action_diff, action_path).

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 returns a verdict ('allow' or 'consult_required') for a pending code action, which is a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kb_consult which would perform the consultation.

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 implies the tool is used to check if a pending code action requires consultation ('Governed actions require a fresh consultation on record'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like kb_consult or when not to use it.

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