kb_startup_continuity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only', describes the output field '_continuity_filter' for legibility, and mentions sorting and limit behavior. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the raw schema, though it could further explain potential side effects or permissions (though read-only implies none).

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 three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first defines the operation and scope, the second provides usage guidance, and the third explains output characteristics and safety. No filler or redundancy; information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, ordering, limit, output filter, and read-only nature. The only notable omission is the 'app_id' parameter, which is required by the schema but unexplained. This is a minor but real gap, keeping it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'limit' parameter ('up to `limit`') but does not elaborate on its units or default, and critically fails to mention the required 'app_id' parameter at all. This leaves a significant gap for the agent to know what value to provide for app_id.

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 ('Fetch the knowledge atoms marked for session-startup continuity'), specifies the exact filter (domain 'continuity' or tagged "continuity"), and provides ordering ('newest first') and limit behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like store_get or knowledge_search, which have broader scopes.

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 description explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Call early in a session to recover standing decisions and in-flight state.' This gives clear contextual guidance, though it does not mention alternatives or explicit exclusion scenarios, so it falls 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.