knowledgelib-mcp

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and non-destructive write behavior. The description adds valuable business logic: 'Popular suggestions are prioritized for new knowledge unit creation' and 'The next agent that asks the same question will get an answer', explaining the long-term effect. Does not contradict annotations (submit/write aligns with readOnlyHint=false).

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?

Front-loaded with 'STEP 3' workflow indicator. Four sentences each earning their place: (1) action definition, (2) trigger conditions, (3) business logic/prioritization, (4) future effect. No redundant or wasted language.

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 3-parameter submission tool without output schema, the description adequately covers workflow position, triggering conditions, and downstream effects (future agent availability). Minor gap: does not describe the immediate return value (e.g., confirmation ID or success status).

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 100% with clear examples for each parameter (question, context, domain). The description mentions 'question or topic request' aligning with the question parameter, but does not add semantic guidance beyond what the fully-documented schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Submit' with resource 'question or topic request' to target 'knowledgelib.io'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'query_knowledge' by positioning this as the fallback when querying returns no results, clarifying its role in the knowledge acquisition workflow.

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?

Explicitly states 'ALWAYS call this when query_knowledge returned no results' and 'when a user asks about a topic that should be covered', providing clear when-to-use conditions and implicitly referencing the alternative tool (query_knowledge) for the primary path.

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