Angular: rules for the project version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only adds that 'Every rule was measured on the v17-v22 stand', which hints at reliability but does not clarify core behaviors: whether the tool is read-only, how it analyzes the project, or what happens for versions outside v17-v22. No mention of side effects, required permissions, or return format.

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 short, with two sentences and no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence, however, uses the vague phrase 'measured on the v17-v22 stand', which may confuse readers; it earns a minor penalty for clarity while remaining concise overall.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should help infer why the result is useful. The text gives a general sense of what the tool reports (existence/non-existence of features) but does not specify the format or granularity of the answer. For a simple query tool with optional parameters, this is minimally complete but not fully transparent.

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%, so the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description enriches the topic parameter by listing examples (template syntax, signals, DI) but not all enum values (components, control-flow, forms, testing). It does not add details about the path parameter beyond the schema. Thus it meets the baseline but does not significantly exceed it.

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 identifies the resource (the project's Angular version) and the general purpose ('what exists and what does not') while naming specific areas (template syntax, signal APIs, zoneless, DI). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on component info, templates, diagnostics, workspace mapping, or usage finding. However, it lacks a strong imperative verb like 'list' or 'check', making it slightly less crisp than an ideal purpose statement.

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 usage when one needs to know whether an Angular feature is available in the project's version, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It also does not mention exclusions or complementary tools. Since the need is inferable from the phrasing, it earns a midpoint score.

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