kb_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and discloses important side effects: it may trigger an incremental sync and call an embedding API if there are unsynced index changes. It also warns about the cost of retrieving an entire document, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the bare read semantics.

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 and front-loaded, immediately stating the primary purpose. Both sentences deliver essential guidance with no filler, and the structural use of parentheses keeps secondary details attached without disrupting the main flow.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most critical operational behaviors: read semantics, side-effecting sync/embedding calls, range guidance, and multi-vault path behavior. It does not describe the return structure or fully explain all parameters, such as heading, which leaves slight room for ambiguity.

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 adds meaning for start_line/end_line as a range-limitation mechanism, explains vault_path's role in multi-vault scenarios, and clarifies that source is a vault-relative path in fan-out results. However, the heading parameter remains undocumented.

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 states a specific action — reading the original knowledge base text — and explicitly distinguishes itself from answer-generation tools by noting it does not call an LLM. This makes it clear what kb_read is for and differentiates it from siblings like kb_search.

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 gives clear context: use when you want raw text, not an LLM-generated answer. It also advises passing start_line/end_line to avoid pulling the full document, and vault_path in multi-vault environments. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so it falls just 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.