Kz Summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The enumeration of returned categories implies a read-only aggregate with no side effects, but this is never stated, and nothing is said about cost, permissions, or freshness of the summary. Given an output schema exists, the missing piece is modest but real.

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 a heavy but useful noun list; no filler. The telegraphic style is efficient, though the fragmentary phrasing reads more like a data listing than an instruction.

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?

A zero-parameter read tool with an output schema needs little more than a statement of contents, which this provides. The only real gap is the absence of any routing signal relative to sibling read tools such as kz_get.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics and the description correctly adds none. There is nothing an agent could misinterpret at invocation time.

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?

Names a concrete artifact (the plan summary) and enumerates exactly what it covers: rooms with area and floor, walls, openings, placed objects with dimensions and room, and pools. This tells an agent the scope of the response precisely, though it does not contrast itself with siblings like kz_get or kz_room_geometry, which may overlap.

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?

No guidance on when to call this instead of kz_get or kz_room_geometry, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the name and from the enumerated contents that this is the broad overview tool.

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