kura_map

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

Without annotations, the description implies a read-only operation by describing the tool as showing a map, not modifying anything. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, nor does it mention any potential limitations or performance characteristics, leaving some room for ambiguity about its exact 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 concise yet informative, using a memorable metaphor ('map, not the contents') and listing concrete usage scenarios. It is well-structured, front-loads the core purpose, and avoids unnecessary detail, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: what the tool does, when to use it, and how it differs from related tools. It provides sufficient information for an agent to decide when to invoke it without needing additional details.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'store' with a concise explanation. The tool description does not add further semantic detail about the parameter, but since the schema coverage is 100% and the parameter is optional, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('whole index of the kura'), and clarifies that it provides a map of memory triggers rather than the contents themselves. It also explicitly contrasts with kura_read, making its role unambiguous.

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 explicit 'when to use' scenarios (e.g., before claiming a topic was never discussed, when choosing a memory to open, after switching kura) and implicitly contrasts with kura_read for retrieving details, giving clear guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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