explain_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-obvious remediation path (local page, previews, backs up, can undo) and forbids a tempting workaround, which is genuine behavioral guidance. It does not add rate/limit or scoping caveats, but nothing is contradicted.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the optional parameter, then the constraint and its remedy. Dense but every sentence carries information; the final sentence is long but its remediation detail is worth the length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is only the meaning of `project_path`; otherwise the description is sufficient for an agent to call this correctly and to route around the write limitation.

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 burden. It compensates well for `kind` by enumerating the six valid values the schema does not (mcp_server, skill, plugin, hook, marketplace, instructions) and implies `name`, but `project_path` is never mentioned, leaving a third of the parameters undefined anywhere.

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?

"Explain one name: every definition across clients and scopes, which one loads in the project, and why" states a specific verb (explain), a specific resource (one named item), and the exact output shape (all definitions + resolution + rationale). This clearly separates it from the list-style siblings (show_setup, list_findings, list_projects) without needing to name them.

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?

It gives clear trigger context (one name, ambiguity about which definition wins) and a strong operational rule: do not edit client settings files, instead direct the developer to `kitden open`. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings such as show_setup for a whole-configuration overview, so the when-not is partially inferred.

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