kb_startup_continuity

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a concrete behavioral guarantee: 'The result always includes _continuity_filter showing exactly what was searched, so an empty list is legible.' It also specifies ordering ('newest first') and the limit effect. These details add real value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 tight sentences with the primary action and scope front-loaded. Every sentence contributes: the fetch semantics, the usage timing, and the result legibility guarantee. There is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 simple read-only fetch with no output schema, the description covers the key purpose, usage, and a result marker. However, it does not explain what a 'knowledge atom' includes or what the full return shape is, and it leaves `app_id` undefined. These gaps prevent it from being fully complete for a caller who needs to invoke it correctly.

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 for both parameters. It explains `limit` ('up to `limit`'), but it completely omits `app_id`, which is the only required parameter. An agent would not know what value to supply for `app_id` from the description alone, leaving a critical semantic gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and a clearly defined resource ('knowledge atoms marked for session-startup continuity') with explicit selection criteria ('domain “continuity” or tagged “continuity”'). This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling knowledge and store tools by specifying a unique scope and ordering ('newest first').

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?

It gives clear contextual guidance: 'Call early in a session to recover standing decisions and in-flight state.' This tells an agent when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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