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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds valuable domain context by explaining the front-end quality focus and the report → issue → violator element → diagnosis hierarchy, though it does not describe the concrete return format.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence supplies only the domain context and result structure needed to orient an agent.

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 zero-parameter overview tool with no output schema and rich safety annotations, the description provides everything necessary: what Kilotest tests, what the overview covers, and how results are organized. Additional detail would be redundant or better served by the specific sibling tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not need to add anything further about inputs.

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 (explain) and resource (Kilotest, its tools, and result structure). It clearly differentiates this overview tool from siblings like getReport and listIssues, which retrieve specific data rather than provide orientation.

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?

Usage is implied: this is an orientation tool for understanding Kilotest before using the more specific listing and request tools. However, the description does not explicitly say when to call it instead of a sibling, nor does it name any alternatives or exclusions.

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