kirikiri_list_text_refs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (collect indices) and implies a read-only operation, but does not mention what happens if the file is malformed, whether the file is modified, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple list operation but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words, filler, or repetition. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity and is front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description conveys the essential purpose but misses some context an agent might need, such as what the returned indices look like, whether they are sorted, or how errors are reported. The description is sufficient for basic invocation but not fully complete without additional guidance.

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?

The single parameter 'path' has no schema description, but the description clarifies that the path points to a KAG .ks file. This adds meaningful context to the parameter. However, it doesn't explain format expectations (e.g., relative vs absolute, encoding) or how the path relates to the collected indices beyond being the source file. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates.

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 uses the specific verb 'Collect' and identifies the exact resource ('[text num=N] indices from a KAG .ks file'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle scenario text, archives, or other KAG operations. Even though the KAG tag syntax may be domain-specific, it precisely communicates what is extracted.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools like kirikiri_load_scenario_text that could be confused with this one. The usage context is only implicit from the tool name and description.

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