KB Onboarding Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, and idempotentHint true. The description adds behavioral context by stating the tool 'computes' a status and listing the four possible state values ('absent, partial, onboarded, rename_candidate'), which informs the agent about the outcome range without contradicting 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?

Two sentences: the first states the purpose with verb and resource, the second enumerates the possible outcomes. No extraneous content, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 provides the core purpose and output domain, and given that an output schema exists (as per context), the agent can retrieve detailed return specifications there. However, it does not explain conditions for each state or what 'rename_candidate' means, which might be needed for full understanding.

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 four parameters. The description mentions 'workspace + optional component' but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's descriptions for 'component_remote_url' or 'workspace_remote_url'. Hence it meets the baseline without significant added value.

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 computes onboarding status for a workspace and optional component, and lists the possible states. It is specific and actionable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kb_get or kb_health, which might also involve status retrieval.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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