Route Current Intent to Skills

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 needs no restating. The description adds the sequencing behavior (call before workflow selection), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about the shape of the recommendation, whether it is cached/deterministic, or what the caller receives back.

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 with no filler, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the calling condition. Efficient, though the second sentence could be folded in without loss.

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 carries some burden for explaining returns, and it only implies a ranked skill recommendation without detail. Combined with three undocumented parameters and a nested object, the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 only 25% and there are 4 parameters including a nested context object. The description implies the request text goes into the message parameter but never explains limit, format, or any of the context sub-fields (mode, files, previousErrors), so it fails to compensate 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 specific verb (Recommend) and resource (Kilo-Kit skills), plus enumerates the triggering inputs (bug fix, feature, UI task, coding issue). It is clear what the tool produces, though it never names or contrasts itself with the close sibling kilo_search_skills, so the distinction for an agent is inferential.

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 explicit timing guidance: 'Call before selecting or executing a workflow skill,' which is strong sequencing context. It does not, however, mention when NOT to call it or name an alternative (e.g., kilo_search_skills for direct lookup), so the routing decision against siblings is left implicit.

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