kb_init

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it reveals that the tool validates the directory, writes to a user-level registry that survives restarts, builds an index in the background, and starts file monitoring. These are meaningful side effects beyond a mere 'initializes'. It omits edge-case behavior such as idempotency (what happens if the folder is already registered) and error handling for invalid paths, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single compact, front-loaded sentence packs in the core action, the four-step behavioral outline, the persistence note, and a clear usage condition. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential decision-making facts: what it does, what side effects it triggers, persistence across restarts, asynchronous behavior, and when to invoke it. The notable gaps are the return value/confirmation format and behavior on duplicate registration, but given the moderate complexity this is reasonably complete.

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 baseline is 3. Both parameters (name, path) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only minor value by implying that the path must be a valid directory (校验目录) and confirming that name is optional and defaults to the folder name. It does not materially enrich parameter understanding beyond 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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing — 注册（初始化）一个文件夹为知识库 (register/initialize a folder as a knowledge base) — and enumerates concrete steps: validate directory, write registry, build index, start file monitoring. It distinguishes itself from the sibling set (kb_unregister, kb_list, kb_search, etc.), none of which perform initialization, and the closing clause positions it as the setup tool.

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 explicitly states when to call it: 首次使用或要纳入新文件夹时调用 (call on first use or when adding a new folder). This is clear context for an agent. However, it does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions — e.g., it never says to use kb_unregister for removal or kb_rebuild for re-indexing — so it falls short of a 5.

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