kb_build_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (pages with snippets plus graph neighbours), but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. The return disclosure is valuable but safety context is missing.

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 tight sentences front-load the action and result with zero filler. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy for an agent to parse.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does explain what is returned, which is essential. However, it leaves parameter semantics, safety profile, and sibling routing unaddressed, so it is only minimally complete given the information gaps in the structured fields.

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%, so the description must explain the two parameters. It refers to 'a query' only obliquely and says nothing about the 'limit' parameter or its default of 5, leaving both parameters largely undocumented beyond their names.

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 specific verb (assemble) and resource (navigable starting set) and explains the output content: top matching pages with snippets plus immediate graph neighbours. This clearly differentiates it from plain search or page-read siblings, but it never names an alternative tool to contrast with, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'to decide what to read next' implies an exploratory read use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use condition, and no mention of sibling tools like kb_search or kb_read_page. Usage is only implied.

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