kas_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the shared 'pick' and 'filter' behavior, which is useful, but it does not indicate which actions have side effects (e.g., create_session vs get_space) or what security/permissions are needed. This is a notable gap for a tool that mixes a write action with read actions.

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 brief and front-loaded with a high-level summary before listing actions. The optional params explanation is concise and actionable. It could be better structured with separate sections for each action, but it is efficient and free of filler.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what each action returns and how they differ. It fails to distinguish between 'get_space' and 'get_space_usage' or describe the output format of any action. For a multi-action tool with creating and reading capabilities, this is a significant gap.

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 description adds value for 'pick' and 'filter' by explaining their purpose (token reduction, result filtering) and giving a filter example. However, it does not clarify the 'params' object, which is still opaque. Schema coverage is 50%, and the description partially compensates but not completely.

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 'Sessions, disk space, traffic' and lists action names, making the domain clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools (ssl, dns, domain, etc.) by focusing on system-level operations. However, each action is not individually described, so the purpose of actions like 'get_space' vs 'get_space_usage' is only inferred from their names.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to choose kas_system over kas_dns or kas_database, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The only context is the tool name and domain summary, which indirectly imply usage but do not provide clear direction.

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