kedro_general_instructions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that guidance is returned, without detailing what topics are covered, the format of the output, or any limitations. This is minimal and leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

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, succinct sentence with no redundant information. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, exemplifying high conciseness and clear structure.

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 parameterless tool, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps: it doesn't specify the scope of 'general Kedro usage guidance' or how the output schema relates to the returned content. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description alone is incomplete for full understanding.

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, so there is nothing to explain about inputs. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not need to add parameter-level detail.

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 states the tool's function: 'Return general Kedro usage guidance.' This uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('general Kedro usage guidance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like notebook_to_kedro and project_migration which handle specific conversion/migration tasks.

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 usage context is implied by the tool name and description—it is for general guidance—but there is no explicit instruction on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.

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