Validate KB files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the return shape ({ok, missing, hash_mismatches}), noting a historical crash (v6 issue), and explaining the persist behavior with a best-effort note. No contradictions 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?

The description is three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, the second clarifies read-only nature and output format, and the third addresses the parameter. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 one optional parameter, existing annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what the tool does, its return structure, and parameter semantics. The historical crash note adds useful context, making it sufficiently complete for a simple tool.

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%, so the description must explain the only parameter 'persist'. It does so by describing its effect ('snapshots to GKB_OUTPUT_DIR') and noting 'best-effort', adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 clear, specific action: checking file existence and SHA256 hashes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gkb_index, which also deals with file integrity, but the verb 'validate' and the specific checks provide adequate purpose clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about a v6 crash and persist behavior hints at context but does not provide clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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