Kilo-Kit C4 Memory Report

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 usefully says what is read (facts, decisions, suggestions) and that scope is global, but says nothing about size limits, pagination, or recency windows for 'recent suggestions'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized but arguably too sparse for the tool's scope.

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 simple idempotent read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the high-level content reasonably. However it omits the format parameter entirely and gives no sense of the return shape (facts vs decisions vs suggestions structure).

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 0% and there is one optional parameter (format, enum markdown/json, default markdown). The description never mentions the output format option, so it does not compensate for the schema 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 clear verb (Read) and a specific resource (global C4 memory facts, decisions, recent suggestions). It distinguishes itself reasonably from the sibling kilo_remember_fact (which writes), though it doesn't explicitly name that split.

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 indication of when to use this versus siblings like kilo_search_skills, kilo_record_reflection, or kilo_compact_context. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource named.

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