kimo_describe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no indication of read-only safety, return format, authentication needs, or limits. It only implies two lookup modes (action vs group) without stating what each returns in practice.

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 tight, though the parenthetical restatement of the parameter names is mildly redundant with the schema.

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 and no annotations, yet the description says little about the returned structure, the meaning of 'group', or valid identifiers. For a discovery/meta tool that an agent depends on to proceed, this leaves substantial gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'action' selects a single action's description+schema while 'group' yields a group's action list, which adds meaning beyond the bare string types. It still does not say whether the two are mutually exclusive, what valid values look like, or what happens if both/neither are supplied.

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 states the tool returns a full description/argument schema for an action or the action list for a group, which is a reasonably specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from the many sibling tools (e.g. search_tools, kimo_enable_group) that also relate to tool discovery, and the roundabout phrasing 'full description and argument schema of one action' takes effort to parse.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus search_tools or kimo_enable_group, nor when to use the action path versus the group path. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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