bisect_skip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not meet it: it never says whether skipping advances/shrinks the bisect range, what state the session ends in, or whether version_id scopes the skip to a specific version. Worse, the appended marketing paragraph ('Requires Kiln Pro') introduces licensing/paywall ambiguity that an agent could easily misread as a precondition for calling this tool.

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?

Only the first sentence earns its place; the remaining two sentences are a pricing upsell plus a URL, unrelated to invoking the tool and actively harmful to comprehension. Signal-to-noise is poor and the key behavioral information is absent entirely.

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 workflow-mutating tool in a bisect sequence, with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain session state effects and parameter meaning. It explains neither and instead spends its length on promotional copy, leaving an agent unable to predict the outcome of the call.

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 0% for both parameters (session_id required, version_id optional) and the description says nothing about either — not what a session_id identifies, not why version_id is optional or what omitting it means. This is the maximum-coverage-gap case where the description must compensate and does not.

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 first sentence states a specific verb+object ('Skip the current candidate') and the parenthetical 'uncertain / untested' clarifies its role relative to the implied bisect_good/bisect_bad siblings. It is clear enough to distinguish from those, though it never names them explicitly and 'candidate' is only meaningful to an agent already versed in the bisect workflow.

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 parenthetical 'uncertain / untested' implies the condition for choosing this over bisect_good or bisect_bad, which is genuine guidance. However, no alternative is named and there is no statement of prerequisites (e.g., an active bisect session from bisect_start), so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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