kernel_meta_elicit_confirm

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: it returns `action: "unsupported"` with a reason when the client has not declared the elicitation capability. It still omits the success-path return shape, blocking behavior, and the meaning of `default_value`, so for a tool that pops UI in front of a user, a 3 is fair.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the identity and behavior, with the failure branch placed at the end. The trailing note that every real elicitation tool must handle that branch is slightly didactic but still earns its place as context.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return values needn't be spelled out, and the description still flags the notable `unsupported` action. The main gap is `default_value` semantics, which is left to an undocumented half of the schema.

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?

The schema documents `message` but leaves `default_value` undescribed at 50% coverage. The phrase 'yes/no form' hints at a boolean default, but the description never explains what `default_value` controls, so it only partly compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it is a 'Server-initiated elicitation demo' that 'asks the connected client to display a yes/no form and echoes the user's choice.' That is concrete enough to separate it from the kernel_meta_* and kernel_agents_* siblings, though it never names an alternative tool to compare against.

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?

Calling it a 'demo' implies it is for exercising the elicitation path rather than production work, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of a real tool, and no when-not guidance. The only conditional guidance given covers the client-capability branch, not tool selection.

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