kit

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the read-only browse/search/get actions clearly. It does not claim any side effects or destructive behavior, which is consistent with the tool's apparent purpose. Explicitly stating 'read-only' would improve transparency, but the current text is adequate.

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 structured with the core purpose first, then context triggers, then action guidelines. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Removing the specific counts (86, 99, 103) might improve conciseness without loss of clarity.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality, usage contexts, and parameter usage adequately. It does not describe return values explicitly, but that is acceptable when no output schema exists. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the baseline is set to 3. The description adds context for when to use which parameter combinations (e.g., 'action=search to discover, action=get to read the full prompt/skill'), but the schema already enumerates parameters with descriptions. The added value is moderate.

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 the components (agents, commands, skills). It distinguishes actions (list, get, search) and provides a specific verb-resource pairing. No sibling tool has an equivalent purpose, so differentiation is clear.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: 'Call this when the user mentions Supabase...' and a list of relevant topics. It also explains which action to use for different intents (search, get). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though sibling names are provided for reference.

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