show_setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so restating read-only adds little. The valuable additions are the enumeration of what is inspected and the workaround path (`kitden open`) that previews, backs up and undoes changes, which is behavior an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 purpose, then defaults, then safety/workaround guidance. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the final clause about previewing, backing up and undoing is slightly verbose for what it conveys.

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 values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, defaults, client vocabulary and the safety posture for a read-only inspection tool. Minor gaps (path format, whether project_path must exist) keep it from a 5.

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% and the schema does not even list enum values, yet the description supplies the accepted client values (claude_code, claude_desktop_code_tab, codex, cursor) and the default behavior of both parameters. This meaningfully compensates for an otherwise bare schema; only path format conventions remain unstated.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it shows what each AI coding client loads for a project, and enumerates the resource kinds (MCP servers, skills, plugins, hooks, marketplaces, instruction files) plus the attributes returned (source, scope, on/off state). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like explain_item or list_findings.

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 concrete when-to-use context via defaults (project_path defaults to the current folder, client defaults to all four clients) and an explicit when-NOT/alternative: don't edit client settings files, instead direct the developer to the local page via `kitden open`. It stops short of routing against the sibling tools, but the exclusionary guidance is clear.

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