kb_fetch_queries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a fair job: it discloses the return structure ({ts, tool, query, limit, results}), the count field, and the ordering rule ('most recent limit entries oldest-first'). It does not explicitly state that the call is side-effect free or whether any permissions are needed, so a mutation-safety disclaimer 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by return-shape detail and then the use case. Every sentence contributes, though the field list with backtick formatting is slightly denser than necessary.

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 single-optional-parameter, read-only log tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, ordering, and purpose. The remaining gaps (permissions, any paging beyond limit) are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that limit bounds 'the most recent limit entries' and that ordering is oldest-first, which adds real meaning, but it never states the default (50) or any maximum bound.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Read back recorded queries') and explicitly scopes it to the kb_search / kb_build_context call log, which separates it from every sibling that writes or reads wiki content. An agent can distinguish this log-reading tool from other kb_* tools without inspecting the schema.

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 final sentence gives clear intent ('Use it to see what has actually been asked of the wiki'), so the agent knows the right context. However, it names no alternatives or when-not conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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