kit

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It mentions the counts of agents/commands/skills and action semantics. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or any rate limits. The implied behavior is clear but not fully transparent.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and key counts. It then lists usage triggers and action mappings. While slightly long, each sentence adds value. Could be condensed slightly but remains effective.

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?

No output schema exists, so description must explain return context. It covers the main actions and parameters well. Missing details on pagination or response structure, but for a browsing tool the description is fairly complete given the context.

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 83% (5 of 6 params described). The description adds value by explaining how actions map to usage (e.g., 'action=search to discover'). It also clarifies the 'terse' parameter behavior. This goes beyond the schema's enum definitions.

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 'Browse the personal kit' and lists specific actions (list-agents, list-commands, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cost-blocks or install by focusing on knowledge retrieval. The resource and verb are specific.

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 states when to call the tool: when user mentions Supabase, multi-tenant SaaS, etc. Also provides action guidance: 'use action=search to discover, action=get to read the full prompt/skill.' Does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but context is clear.

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