kb_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently states that no LLM is called and implies a read-only operation, and it adds the important detail that source is a vault-relative path. It does not, however, disclose return format, failure behavior, or other side effects.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds information. The multi-vault caveat is placed where it is most useful, after the primary behavior.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return behavior and parameter semantics more fully. It omits what the tool returns, how heading/line ranges behave, and how it relates to sibling tools, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies source path semantics and when to pass vault_path, but heading, start_line, and end_line are left entirely to inference from their names. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.

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?

Description clearly states a specific action—reading knowledge base original text—and the resource, plus the notable trait that it does not invoke an LLM. This differentiates it from likely LLM-based siblings like kb_search, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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?

Provides useful contextual guidance for multi-vault environments (recommends explicitly passing vault_path) and clarifies the meaning of source in fan-out results. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives 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.