kb_suggest_research

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses that this is a deferred, fire-and-forget submission ("Suggestions are read by a research process later; nothing is researched now"), imposes a one-suggestion-per-gap rate discipline, and adds a content restriction (no secrets or third-party personal data). It omits visibility/idempotency details such as whether duplicates are rejected, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose, then trigger conditions, then parameter guidance, then caveats, then the return shape -- a logical progression with no filler sentences. It is dense but every sentence carries information; only the return-shape line could be trimmed if an output schema existed.

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 5-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, per-parameter meaning, side-effect timing, content constraints, and the success/rejection return shape ({recorded, id, entry} / {recorded: false, error}). Only downstream visibility and duplicate handling are unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines both `kind` values in prose (critical since no enum exists in the schema), gives phrasing instructions for the required `subject`, and names the optional `topic`, `reason`, and `by` with examples including the `by` format ("claude-code in repo X"). There is no parameter left undefined by both schema and description.

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 action and target: record a research suggestion for the owner's research process when the KB has a gap or a missing subject. It is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like kb_search and kb_read_page, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the nearby sibling kb_propose_changes, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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?

Gives two concrete trigger conditions tied to the `kind` values ("could not answer something your work needed" for gap; "a subject the owner's work keeps touching" for subject) and states that nothing is researched now. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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