aiworkhub_manager_kb_related

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is low, yet the description adds little. 'Bounded' is unexplained — the agent cannot tell whether results are capped, depth-limited, or paginated, and there is no note on what 'canonical' excludes.

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?

One short phrase, front-loaded and free of padding, so it is concise. But it is concise by omission rather than by precision — the brevity leaves key behavior and parameter meaning unstated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool whose only parameter is undocumented in the schema, the description should carry that burden and does not; 'bounded' and 'canonical' remain undefined.

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 single required 'key' parameter is documented nowhere. The description only implies it addresses a KB entity; it gives no format, whether it is a KB id/title/slug, or what happens on a miss.

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 verb (lookup) and resource (KB relations) and adds qualifiers 'canonical' and 'bounded', which hint at scope. But it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like aiworkhub_manager_kb_get, aiworkhub_manager_kb_search, or aiworkhub_manager_context_graph_related, so an agent must guess which relation tool to pick.

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 exclusion conditions, and no mention of alternatives. The 'MANAGER READ' prefix hints at a privileged read context but does not say when this beats kb_get or kb_search.

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