Consult slicing knowledge

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation is consistent with the description. Beyond the annotation, the description discloses real behavioral traits: knowledge is composed per situation rather than returned as preset bundles, empty results trigger a fallback, and recommendations should be backed by real slice/status data. It stops short of describing result shape or size, but for a read-only lookup this is solid added context.

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?

Two short paragraphs, no filler, with the core action and the mandatory-call directive front-loaded. The second paragraph shifts from tool behavior to agent recommendation style, which is useful but slightly dilutes focus on the tool itself.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, mandatory usage timing, fallback behavior, and the nature of the returned guidance. The main remaining gap is that the caller learns nothing about output volume or formatting from the definition itself.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It partly does by characterizing the query as a 'topic, symptom, or intent', which tells the agent what kind of string to send, but gives no syntax, example, or scope-length guidance. Minimum viable compensation for the coverage gap.

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 concrete verb and resource ('retrieve curated slicing knowledge + saved context notes') and scopes it to a topic, symptom, or intent. It also differentiates itself from siblings by naming find_config_keys as the fallback and by declaring it 'never returns preset bundles', which separates it from select_preset/get_preset_config.

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 an explicit trigger ('ALWAYS call before deriving or changing settings for a user goal') and names the alternative path when the result is empty ('fall back to find_config_keys/web search'). It further specifies downstream behavior — present 2-3 quantified options rather than adjectives — so the agent knows both when to call and how to use the result.

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