킷 아이콘 버그 전면 교정 CSS

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it names the underlying bug, its magnitude (206 locations), the scope of the fix (whole page), and the intended artifact (save as a correction file). It stops short of describing the returned CSS structure or any size/authoring caveats, keeping it shy of a 5.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then the exclusion, then the use case. Three tight sentences with no filler, though the bug details in the opening clause are somewhat dense.

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 single optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what is produced (corrective CSS), corrects a common misuse path, and specifies the intended action. Complete enough for correct invocation, with only minor gaps around the returned payload's form.

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 100% and assetBase is already documented in the schema (default node_modules/krds-uiux). The description only alludes to the kit asset context and adds no new format or behavior detail for the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource (returns CSS that corrects the kit v1.1.0 icon path bug img/img duplication, 206 places 404) with precise scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_page_scaffold, noting that tool already injects this CSS, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not (if you use get_page_scaffold withSiteChrome it is auto-injected, so not needed) and a when (projects composing layout directly, e.g. React layouts, when icons don't show). It also tells the agent what to do instead of manual per-instance fixes.

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