check_kc_federation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'Check whether' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether any state is modified, what the output format is, or what 'legally' means in this context. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. There is no redundant information or fluff, and the key subject/object structure is front-loaded and clear.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks richer context about the meaning of 'legally share,' error conditions, or whether this is a read-only dry-run. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral and usage context.

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 schema has one parameter, knowledge_base_ids, with 0% description coverage. The description only refers to 'a set of knowledge bases,' which roughly aligns with the parameter but does not explain what the IDs represent, whether they follow a specific format, or any constraints. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name and schema type.

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 clearly identifies the tool's action ('Check') and its specific resource/purpose: whether knowledge bases could legally share one knowledge cluster. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_knowledge_clusters or create_knowledge_cluster, which focus on listing or creation rather than legal compatibility checking.

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?

The purpose implies usage: use this tool when you need to verify if a set of knowledge bases can share a cluster. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is only implicit, matching a score of 3.

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