KB Record Event

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

The description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations indicate it is not read-only nor destructive, but the description implies a write operation. No additional details on side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits are given.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 (5 params, 4 required, output schema present), the description is too minimal. It does not explain why one would record such events, what the audit context is, or any broader implications. The output schema covers return values, but the description lacks actionable context.

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 each parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning or clarification about the parameters beyond what is in the schema.

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 records specific event types (gate_bypass or gate_degraded) in the audit, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from likely sibling tools like kb_gate_check that check gates, though not explicitly.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for recording events. It simply states what it does without usage context.

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