check_kb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the checks performed but does not disclose whether the tool modifies anything (likely read-only), what happens on failure, or whether it requires an existing KB vs. inline knowledge. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but it is thin on behavioral details.

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, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It lists specific checks efficiently. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from usage), but it is not verbose.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (not described), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameters, the output format, or the context of use (e.g., when to use delta_knowledge). The description is adequate for a simple check but lacks essential details for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the three parameters (kb_id, knowledge, delta_knowledge). It does not clarify how they relate (e.g., whether kb_id is required, or how knowledge and delta_knowledge are used). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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: checking a knowledge base for consistency, listing specific checks (syntax errors, undefined predicates, circular rules, duplicates). It distinguishes from siblings like diagnose or explain by focusing on consistency checks, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage for validating a knowledge base but does not specify when to use this over siblings like diagnose or what_if. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention prerequisites or context (e.g., whether kb_id or knowledge must be provided).

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