knowledge_maintain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a critical safety trait for an agent, and it explains nuanced classification behavior such as which items count as misfiles and which are correctly placed. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but the main behavioral surface of a read-only audit is well covered.

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 front-loaded with the essential 'Read-only health report' framing and then uses a compact three-branch structure. Every clause earns its place, including the important misfile nuance, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides strong contextual coverage: purpose, read-only safety, branch criteria, interpretation guidance, and a follow-up workflow via knowledge_write. It stops short of 5 because it does not describe the response/return shape or how results are presented to the agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of thresholds by tying them to branches ('thin body + high hit_count', 'not accessed recently'), but it adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. It does not elevate above the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read-only health report for the knowledge store.' It then enumerates three concrete report branches, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from write, recall, and maintenance siblings. Naming knowledge_write as the action counterpart further clarifies the division of responsibility.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever a knowledge-store health report is needed, and it explicitly instructs to pair with knowledge_write to act on findings. However, it does not give explicit 'when not to use' guidance or differentiate from related audit/recall siblings such as memory_audit or knowledge_recall.

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