Kilo-Kit Route Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the list of aggregated metrics and says nothing about whether telemetry must exist first, how stale the data is, or whether the summary is scoped to a session or the whole history.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the action first and then the payload contents. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, nothing wasted.

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 parameterless read-only aggregation report with no output schema, the description's enumeration of what gets summarized is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call it. Missing only marginal context such as the scope/period of the telemetry being summarized.

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%, but the sole parameter is a self-documenting format enum (markdown|json) with a default. The description never mentions the format option, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; a baseline 3 is appropriate given how trivial the parameter is.

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 (Summarize) and resource (route telemetry), and enumerates the report contents: top skills, task modes, workflow chains, score averages, conflict penalties. It is distinguishable from kilo_memory_report by the 'route' domain, though the description never names that sibling explicitly to reinforce the boundary.

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 statement of when to use this report versus kilo_memory_report, kilo_sentinel_status, or the other reporting/telemetry siblings. The agent must infer that this is the post-routing analytics view from the word 'route' alone; there are no triggers, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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