kratos_docs_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: the tool is feature-gated behind an environment variable, and it exfiltrates the repo name to the external host mcp.deepwiki.com. That is exactly the kind of context annotations would never convey. It omits external-service behavior like latency, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: what it lists, when to use it relative to the read tool, and the operational caveats. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler.

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?

Return values need not be explained given an output schema exists, and selection guidance plus the enable-flag caveat cover the agent's decision path. A brief note on the required repo string format or what happens when the flag is off (error vs empty) would close the last gap.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema coverage, so the description must explain it, and it does: `repo` is a GitHub repository name, with the default called out and the destination (mcp.deepwiki.com) named. It stops short of stating the expected format (owner/name vs URL), which is the one remaining ambiguity in a single-param tool.

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?

Specific verb (List) + resource (documentation topics) + scope (a GitHub repository, with default KratosMultiphysics/Kratos). It names one sibling, kratos_docs_read, and positions itself as the discovery step before it, though the relationship to kratos_docs_ask is left unstated.

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?

"Use it to find what to read before kratos_docs_read" gives an explicit ordering with a named alternative. It also states the gating condition (disabled unless KRATOS_MCP_ENABLE_DEEPWIKI=1), which tells the agent when the call will not work at all. No explicit when-not-otherwise guidance beyond that.

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