kura_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. The wording implies a non-mutating enumeration, and it does state the principal output attribute (agent mode), but it does not clarify list format, snapshot semantics, or what happens when no kura are found.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second states when to call it. No redundant words or restatements of the tool name occur, and the most useful information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the object being listed, the key field returned, and the appropriate usage context. The only modest gap is that it does not describe the exact output shape or mode representation, and no output schema exists to compensate.

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 input schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so parameter semantics are fully handled by the schema. There are zero parameters for the description to clarify, and the description appropriately adds context about the meaning and use of the listing.

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 names a specific action ('List'), a specific resource ('the kura this server holds'), and an output attribute ('which agent mode each one belongs to'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like kura_read and kura_use, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 description provides two concrete trigger conditions: uncertainty about which memory the agent is speaking from, and before switching modes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the 'when to call this' guidance is clear and actionable.

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