kb_graph_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, nor does it describe the shape, size, or format of the returned statistics. It only names the topic of the output.

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?

The single sentence-fragment is terse and front-loaded, wasting no words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, capping the score.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information. It hints at the content (graph statistics, index.md categories) but does not explain what an agent can actually do with the result, leaving a real gap for a zero-argument inspection tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the per-calibration baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics for the description to add or omit.

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 identifies the resource and its content ('graph statistics' and 'index.md category structure'), but it is a noun phrase with no verb, so it doesn't state the action an agent takes. It also doesn't differentiate itself from siblings such as kb_search or kb_build_context, which could plausibly return related structural information.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this tool versus the many sibling kb_* tools. An agent must infer that this is for inspecting graph shape/category layout, with no exclusions or alternatives named.

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