Bulk analysis

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds that it operates 'per text' and is kept for compatibility, but does not disclose further behavioral traits like response format or side effects. With annotations present, the description meets the minimum bar.

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 concise at two sentences, with the primary action in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a compatibility note. There is no wasted text, though the structure could be more formalized.

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 (multiple modes, array input, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or error handling. The compatibility note hints at legacy status but does not clarify what a successful invocation produces.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It adds meaning to the 'mode' parameter by explaining each enum value's function, but provides no additional semantics for the 'targets' parameter (array of objects). The description repeats schema information for mode without enhancing understanding of the input structure.

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 analyzes multiple text targets and lists three specific modes (keyword_extraction, rule_mapping, content_analysis) with brief explanations. It distinguishes the tool's function but does not explicitly differentiate from many sibling tools like gkb_query or gkb_smart_orchestrate.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions modes and a compatibility note. Given many siblings with overlapping capabilities, the lack of selection criteria is a significant gap.

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