Open Kioku Explain File

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the core safety profile. The description adds that it 'returns only previously indexed data,' giving additional context about data freshness and no live computation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 information-dense but not overly long. It front-loads the primary action and then lists dos and don'ts. A slightly tighter structure could improve conciseness, but it remains clear and efficient.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers all needed context: what data is retrieved, the access pattern (read-only, indexed), and boundary conditions (only for known files). No gaps remain.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'path' parameter. The description reinforces this with an example path, adding minor value beyond the schema. No additional parameters need explanation.

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 uses specific verbs ('Retrieve') and resources ('repository-relative file'), and lists concrete data types (language detection, syntax parsing, code chunks, symbols). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_files, explain_symbol, and architecture_policy_explain by stating what it does not do.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('for one known repository-relative file') and when not to use (discovery, symbol context, architecture analysis), with specific alternative tool names provided. This gives clear decision support.

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