kura_use

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by revealing that the switch persists for the session, affects subsequent calls, and has no effect on a single-kura bridge (and that it will say so). It does not cover every possible error or side effect, but the key stateful behavior is disclosed.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The main effect and scope are front-loaded, the usage condition follows, and the edge case is placed last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter state-switching tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, when to invoke it, how long the effect lasts, and the one major exception an agent needs to know about.

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 coverage is 100% — 'store' is already described as 'Store or mode name.' The description adds some context by suggesting that stores correspond to modes of work, but it does not enumerate valid values or add meaningful parameter detail beyond the schema. This is the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Switch') and names both the resource ('which kura the following calls read from') and the scope ('rest of this session'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling read/analysis tools like kura_read and kura_map, which retrieve data rather than change the active context.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use when the conversation moves to a different mode of work,' with a concrete example. It also discloses a limitation about bridges bound to a single kura. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended context is clear.

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