kura_use

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the session-wide persistence and the bridge exception, but it does not describe return values, error messages, or side effects beyond the switch. The phrase 'it will say so' hints at feedback but lacks detail. A higher score would require more explicit behavioral documentation.

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 and well-structured: it states the action, the scope (rest of session), a usage scenario, and a caveat about bridges, all in two sentences without 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?

The description covers what, when, and a special case. It does not mention how to verify the current store or the exact response format, but for a simple context-switch tool, it provides adequate information for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 sole parameter 'store' is described as 'Store or mode name', which is functional but vague. The main description gives an example (building vs. talking) but does not enumerate valid values or the effect of an invalid store. Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds only marginal clarity over the parameter name.

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 action: switching which kura subsequent calls read from, with an explicit resource ('the following calls') and a distinct purpose from sibling tools like kura_read or kura_recall. The verb 'switch' is specific and not a tautology.

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?

It provides a concrete scenario ('when the conversation moves to a different mode of work') and notes a limitation (no effect on a bound bridge). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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