steering

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the target file path and that the tool may write to it. However, it omits whether initialization overwrites existing content, permission requirements, or error behavior on a missing file.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and no annotations need covering. But with 0% schema coverage and two undescribed parameters driving a read/write duality, the description leaves the agent without enough to invoke the tool confidently.

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 0% and neither parameter is named in the description. The 'read or initialize' phrasing only vaguely gestures at the action parameter and says nothing about content, leaving both undocumented.

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 pair (reads or initializes) and a precise resource (the constitution at .kiro/steering/constitution.md). It is distinguishable from the spec/skill siblings, though it never explains what a 'constitution' is in this system.

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?

The description implies two modes (read vs. initialize) but gives no guidance on when to pick each, no prerequisites, and no reference to any sibling tool. An agent must infer that supplying content triggers initialization.

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