list_kinds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral trait that it returns aggregated counts rather than a full list, and that it's a quick operation. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the byKind map is sorted, whether zero-count kinds are omitted, or whether the total includes all concepts. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The return shape is front-loaded, and the usage context is given in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (zero params, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values in depth. It covers the purpose, the return shape, and the use case. Minor gap: it doesn't mention whether the distribution is limited to certain concept types or if it includes all vault concepts, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by explaining the return shape ({ total, byKind: { capability: N, ... } }), which is more than the empty schema provides. Baseline 4 for zero params is appropriate.

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's purpose: it provides a vault kind distribution with a total count and per-kind breakdown. It uses a specific verb ('list'/'census') and resource ('vault kind distribution'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling list_concepts by noting it's a quick census without paging.

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 implies when to use it: to size up the vault without paging through list_concepts. It names the alternative (list_concepts) and the context (quick census), though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention other alternatives like query_ontology.

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