kb_fetch_suggestions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses ordering (oldest-first), the exact record shape {id, ts, kind, subject, topic, reason, by}, and the semantics of the count field. It does not state explicitly that the operation is read-only with no side effects, which is the remaining gap.

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-loaded with the purpose, then the return contract. Nothing is wasted and no information is repeated from structured fields.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return shape, ordering, and the count field, which is what an agent needs. The default value of limit and explicit read-only assurance are the only omissions.

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% (the 'limit' property is just titled 'Limit'), so the description must compensate. 'Returns the most recent limit entries' defines what the parameter controls, though it omits the default (50) and any maximum/range.

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 research suggestions') and explicitly names the producing sibling (kb_suggest_research calls), which pins down the resource unambiguously against kb_fetch_queries and other kb_* tools.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to retrieve suggestions previously recorded via kb_suggest_research. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives for other retrieval needs (e.g. kb_fetch_queries).

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