describe_hands_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that it is a static document, does not read any project file or DB row, is read-only with no side effects, auth, or rate limits, and takes no parameters. This fully preempts any behavioral concerns.

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 well-structured and every sentence adds value: what it returns, its static/read-only nature, no parameters, usage context, and sibling alternatives. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the key purpose before the guidance.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is complete. It covers the tool's content, behavior, limitations, and usage context, leaving no obvious gaps for an AI agent to be confused about selection or invocation.

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 and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The description explicitly states 'Takes no parameters', which is consistent with the schema. Per rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description reinforces that.

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 the tool returns the complete authoring reference for `kontexta.json`, including schema, validation rules, and an annotated example. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming `list_hands` for viewing loaded tools and `reload_hands` for applying edits, making its unique purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when helping a user write or fix a `kontexta.json`'. It also names the exact alternatives (`list_hands` and `reload_hands`) and what they are for, providing clear exclusions and alternative routing.

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