kira_premortem

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

Annotations confirm readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns fully, adding details about return structure (scars, hit_count, heat score, minutes saved). No contradiction; description enriches the safety profile.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads purpose and then details return values. It earns its sentences, though it could benefit from bullet points for readability. Not overly long.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must detail return values, which it does: 'each hotspot includes the mistake, the fix ('instead'), a relative heat score, and estimated minutes saved... plus an aggregate prevention value.' It also covers edge cases like 'near_scars'. Adequate 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates the obvious for goal and context but does not add new semantic constraints or examples beyond the schema fields. Minimal added value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a PRE-MORTEM' and 'return a heat map of the past failure patterns.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing its proactive role before task execution, unlike tools like kira_lookup or kira_route.

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 states 'Call this FIRST for any non-trivial task' and provides a clear after-action: 'then read each hotspot's 'instead' and use kira_lookup / kira_route to plan the actual work.' It also describes behavior for low-match scenarios ('near_scars').

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