ik_overview

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states the tool is a 'cheat-sheet' covering specific topics, which clearly implies a read-only informational resource with no side effects. While it doesn't outline the output format, the description adequately conveys the tool's benign, educational nature.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Curated cheat-sheet'), lists topics in a coherent sequence, and ends with a clear directive. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 informational tool with no parameters or output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool is, what content it covers, and when to use it. The low complexity means no further context is needed to enable effective selection and use.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema. Per the 0-parameter baseline of 4, the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The description instead adds value by explaining the tool's content, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies the tool as a curated cheat-sheet for the ik language and lists specific topics (sigils, assignment, program shape, types, memory spaces, control flow, interrupts, minimal program). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ik_tutorial or ik_reference by framing it as an overview to read first.

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 instruction 'READ THIS FIRST before writing any ik code' provides explicit when-to-use guidance as an initial orientation. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the 'first' directive strongly implies prioritizing this tool over others in the documentation set.

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