Read the Clipkit authoring docs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation; the description adds context beyond that—each topic's approximate size, the nature of the pattern cards, and the rationale for exposing docs as a tool. It doesn't cover errors or pagination, but for a single-parameter read-only doc fetcher, the added behavioral context is sufficient.

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 long but tightly packed with necessary distinctions for seven topics; it front-loads the core return behavior and uses semicolon-delimited sub-clauses to keep structure scannable. Slightly verbose but every clause earns its place given the many options.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers the full set of topics, their relative sizes, recommended usage, and even the rationale for the tool's existence. It is complete for both selection and invocation.

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?

While the schema provides an enum and default, the description gives deep semantic meaning to every enum value: sizes, use cases, and distinctions (e.g., 'card' vs 'agents' vs 'protocol'). This far exceeds the schema's bare 'Which doc' description, making the parameter's effect crystal clear.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Return a canonical Clipkit doc as text.' It then enumerates distinct topics and their contents, distinguishing this read-only documentation tool from the sibling project/element tools. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 when-to-use guidance for each topic: the card is 'the recommended context for authoring', patterns are to 'load ONE alongside the card when the brief matches its archetype', and the full guide is 'fetch only when the card doesn't cover a need'. Also explains that resources may not be model-readable, positioning this tool as the preferred access path.

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