knowledgelib-mcp

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the return value format ('full raw markdown with YAML frontmatter, inline source citations...') that annotations do not cover. Does not mention error cases or rate limits, preventing a 5.

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 sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second details return format. Front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple single-parameter retrieval tool, the description is complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by detailing the return format (markdown structure, content types). Combined with complete annotations and full schema coverage, no gaps remain.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single 'unit_id' parameter, the schema carries the semantic burden. The description mentions 'by ID' but does not add syntax details or usage examples beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States specific verb ('Retrieve') + resource ('knowledge unit') + exact scope ('by ID'). The 'specific...by ID' phrasing clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'query_knowledge' (search) and 'batch_query' (bulk operations).

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?

Implies usage context through 'specific knowledge unit by ID,' signaling this is for exact lookups rather than searches. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., 'use query_knowledge for searches') or state 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.