session

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it works offline and answers even when the device is down, effect gates are exposed by class name only (opening is operator-only, out of band), and journal/wait state is in-memory so a restart empties it and voids receipts and frame refs. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage triggers, a return-value enumeration, and restart caveats — every clause is load-bearing. It is dense but slightly long, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return contract and does so thoroughly (target, dry-run state, effect gates, approval posture, standing approvals, act journal, last wait_for_state result), plus the restart caveat an agent would otherwise misread as 'nothing happened'.

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 100% and the single profile parameter is fully documented there (including the config.toml source and KVM_PILOT_PROFILE default). The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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?

States a specific verb (Report) and resource (the server's current operating posture) and immediately differentiates itself from siblings by pairing with healthcheck (device health) and doctrine (playbooks). An agent can tell exactly what class of information this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use triggers are given: after a context compaction, when resuming a long flow, and before planning act calls. It also names the complementary tools (healthcheck, doctrine) so the routing decision is unambiguous.

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