areasList the knowledge areas in this Lady Whiskerdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kit_session_id | No | Your own session ID from wake; reuse for this conversation. A child or subagent must wake separately, without its parent's ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / kit_session_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your own session ID from wake; reuse for this conversation. A child or subagent must wake separately, without its parent's ID.",
+ "maxLength": 160,
+ "minLength": 8,
+ "pattern": "^[A-Za-z0-9:_-]+$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations contain only a title, so the description carries the full burden. "List" weakly implies a read, but there is no statement about read-only vs. mutating behavior, side effects, permissions, or whether kit_session_id is required in practice. For a tool with zero behavioral annotations this is a real gap.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with no filler or hedging. The only cost is that the flavor phrase "this Lady Whiskerdown" consumes words without adding information.
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 listing tool with no output schema, the description should at least indicate what an "area" looks like in the response or how results should be used. Instead the agent learns only that a list exists, leaving the return shape and downstream usage unexplained.
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% and the single parameter kit_session_id is fully documented in the schema, including the subagent caveat. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
"List the knowledge areas" gives a clear verb+resource, but the qualifier "in this Lady Whiskerdown" is an opaque in-joke that never defines what the resource actually is or where it lives. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like systems, focus, or recall, which plausibly return related catalog-like data.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus the other seven sibling tools, no prerequisite or ordering hint (e.g. call before recall/focus), and no exclusions. The agent must guess its place in the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.