kb_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses what citation hygiene actually reports (uncited wiki pages, source pages with no raw evidence, broken raw/ citations), which gives real behavioral insight, but it says nothing about cost, read-only safety, permissions, or what graph stats/hygiene produce.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the phase and scope, then a clarifying detail. No filler or redundancy, though the abrupt second fragment could be integrated more cleanly.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the sole source of behavioral context, and it only covers citation hygiene in any detail. It omits what the audit returns overall and whether the operation is safe/read-only, leaving a gap for a tool whose entire purpose is producing an audit report.

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 the 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?

States a specific verb (audit/verify) and enumerates the scope: graph stats, graph hygiene, and citation hygiene. However, it never differentiates itself from the siblings kb_graph_summary and kb_hygiene, which appear to cover overlapping ground, so an agent cannot tell which to pick from the description alone.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description never mentions an alternative tool, prerequisite, or workflow phase beyond the label 'Phase-1', leaving the agent to guess how this relates to kb_graph_summary, kb_hygiene, or kb_reload.

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