Benchmark Solution Against Industry & GitHub

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds one behavioral detail beyond that: the tool may 'trigger re-planning,' which is a side effect worth knowing. It does not explain what triggers re-planning or how the alignment score is computed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. No filler, though it is terse to the point of omitting usage context.

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?

With no output schema, the description's mention of an 'alignment score' is the only clue about return values, and the re-planning trigger is left unexplained. For an audit tool with six parameters, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 83%, so the schema already documents sessionId, proposedApproach, industryBestPractice, and the two narration params. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., expected format of industryBestPractice), 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+resource: 'Audit the current session trajectory against open-source GitHub standards and industry best practices.' An agent can tell it apart from siblings like kilo_grill_plan or kilo_validate_skills, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. 'Returns alignment score or triggers re-planning' hints at the outcome but does not tell the agent when this tool is preferred over kilo_grill_plan or kilo_trace_root_cause.

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