Retrieve canonical syntax for task, quality, and prompt variables, enabling consistent local-first model routing and stable pattern conversion into reusable tools.
Return canonical task, quality, and prompt-variable syntax.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey that this is a read-only retrieval operation ('Return ... syntax') and implies no side effects, but it does not explicitly disclose safety, mutability, caching, or availability behavior. Adequate but not rich.
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 a single ten-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 zero-parameter informational lookup with an output schema, the description provides enough domain context. It does not attempt to document return values, which the output schema already covers. Complete for this simple tool.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to explain arguments. The baseline of 4 applies; no parameter information is missing.
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 the specific verb 'Return' and identifies a concrete resource: 'canonical task, quality, and prompt-variable syntax.' It clearly states what the tool provides, but it does not explicitly contrast it with any sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. The wording implies it should be used when canonical syntax definitions are needed, but it does not say when it should not be used or mention any alternative tool. Usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.