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

No annotations provided, so description must compensate. It mentions validation outcomes but does not disclose side effects, return format, required permissions, or whether the tool modifies anything. For a linter, assuming read-only is plausible but unstated.

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?

Single sentence, 10 words, front-loaded with primary action. No filler, every word essential.

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?

Given low tool complexity, the description covers core purpose but omits output format (e.g., error list, exit code). No mention of when to use among siblings. Adequate with clear gaps.

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?

One parameter 'manifest' has schema description (100% coverage). Description adds no extra meaning beyond 'path, directory, or HTTPS URL of a knowledge.yaml'. Adequate but not enhanced.

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('validate'/'lint'), the resource ('knowledge.yaml'), and the specific types of issues found (structural errors and navigation-weakening warnings). This distinguishes it from siblings like kcp_load, kcp_plan, etc.

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?

Implies usage is for validating a knowledge.yaml before executing other actions, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references. Context from sibling tools suggests distinct purpose, so clarity is high.

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