kuma_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one useful behavioral trait ('Lean — each call returns only what you need'), but says nothing about whether 'init' mutates/persists session state, permission requirements, or rate limits, which is thin for an unannotated multi-action tool.

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?

Front-loads the single most important instruction ('Call FIRST each session'), then lists actions in a scannable parenthetical format. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers the action surface well and hints at output size ('lean'). It is slightly incomplete on the mutation/return-behavior side and on how the goal/scope/target parameters pair with specific actions, though the schema covers those parameters fully.

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 100% and the action enum already documents every action value, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's action list largely restates the enum description rather than adding syntax, format, or interaction detail (e.g. how scope and target relate to a given action).

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 and resource ('Context & memory recall') and enumerates all nine concrete actions, so the agent knows exactly what the tool provides. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tools kuma_memory / kuma_safety, which overlap on 'memory recall'.

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?

Gives strong sequencing guidance ('Call FIRST each session') plus per-action context such as research 'before editing unfamiliar code', history 'why is this file written this way', and reuse 'before writing duplicate code'. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions against the sibling memory/safety tools.

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