kratos_docs_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses output truncation at ~20k characters, that a `truncated` flag signals it, and that the tool is disabled unless KRATOS_MCP_ENABLE_DEEPWIKI=1. Missing only a note on what happens when called while disabled (error vs empty result).

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, alternative routing, and truncation/gating caveat. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, default, truncation behavior, and the enabling env var. Only marginal gaps remain, such as what the documentation output actually contains.

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 0% for the single `repo` parameter, but the description compensates by naming the default value (KratosMultiphysics/Kratos). It doesn't state the expected owner/name format, which keeps it from a 5.

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 specific verb and resource ('Read the DeepWiki documentation of a GitHub repository') plus the default target repo, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling kratos_docs_ask. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes specific questions to kratos_docs_ask, which is a real alternative-selection rule. It lacks guidance on when to use this over kratos_docs_structure, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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