ck_attach

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond what annotations (none provided) offer: it states the tool is idempotent ('re-running refreshes artifacts'), writes only inside 'project_root', and has no network egress. It also lists what gets installed. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides valuable information. It covers functionality, usage context, idempotency, and side effects without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a setup tool with no output schema. It explains what it does, when to use it, behavior (idempotent, no network egress), and what it installs. It lacks details on error conditions or prerequisites, but overall provides a solid understanding of the tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; the schema already describes 'host' with a list of values, 'project_root' with defaults, and 'scope' with defaults and enum. The description focuses on tool purpose rather than parameter details.

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 verb 'Wire' and the resource 'ControlKeel into the current agent host'. It specifies the action of installing hooks and skills, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'ck_mcp_discover' by advising to use that first if unsure about the host ID.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this once after a one-line MCP install when the host lacks ControlKeel hooks/skills.' It also directs users to an alternative ('Use ck_mcp_discover first if unsure which host ID to pass'), giving clear context and exclusion criteria.

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