kira_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it explains the ordering logic of results (skills sorted by community/vendor, scars sorted by criticality and origin), and warns that both skills and scars are returned. It also mentions that personal failures recorded via kira_record_failure are included. No contradiction with annotations; description enriches understanding.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence defining the tool's purpose, followed by ordering details, and then numbered steps for the agent. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 complexity (returns two types of data with specific ordering and agent usage steps) and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains exactly what the return values contain and how the agent should act on them, leaving no ambiguity.

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% with descriptions for both keyword and context. The description adds that the keyword is case-insensitive and refers to it as a 'firing keyword or phrase', and mentions context for disambiguation. While the schema already conveys core meaning, the description provides slightly more context about how parameters affect the lookup, justifying above-baseline score.

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 it looks up skills (how to do it) and scars (what to avoid) for a given keyword. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kira_record_failure and kira_share_scar by specifying it returns both types with detailed ordering (skills: community first then vendor; scars: critical first, own recorded before shared, then by frequency). This is a specific verb+resource with clear outcome.

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 provides explicit step-by-step instructions for the agent: read all scars first to avoid repeating past failures, then read skills, announce the chosen skill's declaration field, and follow instructions while watching for scar patterns. It also notes that personal scars from kira_record_failure on this machine fire here, adding context. This gives clear when and how to use the tool, including exclusions (avoid repeating failures).

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