kb_hygiene

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, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the category names. It does not state whether this is a read-only audit or mutates state, whether a scan is expensive, or what the output looks like. For a no-annotation tool this is a significant 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?

The fragment is short and wastes no words, but it is not front-loaded with an action verb or a purpose statement, so it reads as a bare topic label rather than a usable definition. Conciseness is achieved at the cost of informativeness.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source an agent has, and it does not say what the tool returns (a list of issues? counts? a pass/fail verdict?) or how to act on it. For a zero-arg diagnostic tool the definition should at minimum state that it returns hygiene findings.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly does not invent parameter details.

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 names the resource scope concretely (broken links, missing-page targets, orphan pages), so an agent can infer this is a knowledge-base hygiene/diagnostics report. However, there is no verb at all – 'Broken links, missing-page targets, and orphan pages.' is a noun fragment – and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling kb_verify, which plausibly covers overlapping link-integrity territory.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling kb_verify that an agent would need to disambiguate against. The reader is left to guess whether this is a scan, a report, or a repair operation.

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