run

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description elaborates that writes may create, update, move, or delete .wuniq context. It also discloses return format (plain text), local-only nature, no auth/rate limits, and desktop app requirement, adding significant context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is a single paragraph that front-loads purpose, then covers usage, behavior, and prerequisites. Every sentence contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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?

Given the simple schema (one parameter, no output schema) and presence of annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, return type, and dependencies (desktop app). It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the 'command' parameter with examples and constraints. The description adds value by explaining the command string nature and syntax guidance, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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?

The description clearly states the tool runs Wuniq Knowledge Engine commands for specific operations (discover, read, maintain, etc.) and distinguishes it from native tools for ordinary project files, providing a specific verb+resource scope.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (for Wuniq commands) and when not (use native tools for ordinary project files), provides examples, and advises using 'help <topic>' for syntax. Also clarifies read commands are non-mutating while writes may mutate.

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