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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior by disclosing that output shape varies by argument combination. It adds no auth, limit, or name-discovery context, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose first, then the three argument-mode outcomes in parallel structure. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be detailed, and the description nonetheless maps arguments to outcomes completely. The only gap is not telling the agent how to obtain valid skill or reference names beyond the implied list mode.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load and does it reasonably well: it explains that 'name' selects a skill and 'reference' selects a file within it, and that omitting name switches to listing. It omits the 64-char limits and where valid names/references come from.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read how to do a multi-step job in Kuro') and scopes the domain with concrete examples (a film, a carousel, a talking head), which helps separate it from get_recipe/get_preset in spirit. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear mode-selection rules: no name lists skills, a name returns steps and reference files, name+reference returns one file. That is strong internal routing guidance, but it offers no when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance against the many get_* siblings.

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