Kernel Status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'telemetry and discovery' and 'predictive readiness', but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as performance implications or required permissions.

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 concise with two short sentences. It immediately states the main purpose and then elaborates with specific capabilities. No unnecessary 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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, three modes, output schema exists), the description is too brief to fully explain each mode's behavior. It mentions 'live health, tool registry, and predictive readiness' but does not detail what each mode returns or how parameters like intent, top_k, organ_filter are used.

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 86%, and the schema already documents each parameter (mode, actor_id, etc.) with descriptions and enums. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: kernel telemetry, discovery, and predictive readiness. It mentions specific actions (query) and resources (live health, tool registry). It somewhat distinguishes from siblings like arif_kernel_health by emphasizing 'across the federation surface', but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arif_kernel_health or arif_kernel_attest. It does not specify usage context, prerequisites, or conditions. The agent must infer from the tool name and sibling set.

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