kutt_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact, the redaction rule "me never returns apikey", plus the implicit authentication requirement, but it stops short of describing response shape, failure behavior, or what 'health' actually reports.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and with the security caveat placed immediately after. The trailing "Actions: health, me" is mildly redundant given the opening sentence and the enum, which keeps it just below a 5.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, both modes, and the notable redaction behavior; the absence of an output schema means return-value documentation is not strictly required. A brief note that 'me' requires an authenticated session would have made it complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'action' parameter already carries an enum of health/me with a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the same enum values and adds a small amount of meaning by hinting at what each operation targets, which is appropriate for the baseline-3 case.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource pair ("Read Kutt health and the authenticated user profile") and then enumerates the two supported operations, so the tool's scope is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with kutt_domains or kutt_links, but the enumerated actions already make clear it covers neither, leaving only minor sibling differentiation on the table.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader can infer that 'health' is for availability checks and 'me' for the caller's own profile, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g. that 'me' requires authentication to be useful), and no mention of when to prefer a sibling tool instead.

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