knowledge_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context: it requires the knowledge_read permission and returns a structured {flags, recommendation, evidence} result. This gives the agent useful behavioral expectations beyond the annotations.

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 no filler: purpose, checks, return shape, and permission. It is front-loaded with the core function and every sentence adds value.

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 description covers the return shape, permission requirement, and high-level behavior, which is good given the strong read-only annotations. However, with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the agent still lacks enough detail about how to set the parameters and interpret the evidence and recommendation fields.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its three parameters, and the description does not explain what app_id, limit, or domain control or how they affect the health check. The parameter names and defaults offer some self-evident hints, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states this is a health check on knowledge records and names the specific checks performed: unsourced records, missing domains, and duplicate content. It is distinct enough from siblings like knowledge_search and knowledge_ingest, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from knowledge_verify.

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 implies usage through 'health check' and lists the checks performed, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like knowledge_verify or knowledge_search, and the 'mem_check analog' reference is only useful if the agent already knows mem_check.

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