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 / 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 provide only a title, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation, but the description adds no detail about return format, session requirements, pagination, or side effects. It is adequate but minimal.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, the resource, and the scope efficiently.
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 simple listing tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the operation and expected return concept. It could add more about when to use the session ID, but that gap is minor given the tool's low complexity.
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 only parameter, kit_session_id, is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline without going beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names a concrete resource ('knowledge areas'), scoped by 'in this Lady Whiskerdown'. It is not a tautology and is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like focus, remember, or wake.
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 implies that the tool is for retrieving knowledge areas, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. Since no sibling tool overlaps obviously with listing areas, the usage context is implied rather than stated.
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.