Knowledge map / system status

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

The description adds behavioral info beyond annotations: declares 'PURE READ', mentions result returned in response, and details the optional persistence behavior including caveats (best-effort, warns on failure, historical crash). Consistent with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a parenthetical provide all necessary information without any filler. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 simplicity (one boolean parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage context, return behavior, and persistence option with edge cases.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains the single parameter 'persist' clearly: when true it snapshots into GKB_OUTPUT_DIR with best-effort behavior and failure warnings.

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 action (summarise) and the resource (index) with specific breakdowns (totals by family, type, language). It distinguishes itself from siblings like gkb_query or gkb_validate which have different purposes.

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 use for summary and notes that it is a pure read. It mentions optional persistence, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like gkb_query for detailed queries.

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