get_best_practices

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description explains the return format ('wrong vs right' rules). However, it does not explicitly state side effects, permission needs, or what happens when id is omitted (though the schema covers that). This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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, well-front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose, the output format, and the intended benefit without any fluff. 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 (one optional param, no output schema), and the description provides sufficient context for what the tool does and how the output is shaped. It does not explain the structure of each rule, but for this low complexity, the description is mostly complete. Slight gap: no mention of return types beyond 'rules'.

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 for the single optional 'id' parameter, describing it as 'Optional best-practice id to fetch a single rule. Omit to get all.' The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 retrieves idiomatic StencilJS best practices formatted as concrete 'wrong vs right' rules. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that detect versions or fetch decorator/lifecycle references by focusing on idiomatic guidance.

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 phrase 'so AI suggestions use built-in Stencil features instead of manual workarounds' implies when to use this tool: when generating or validating suggestions for idiomatic Stencil code. It gives context but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, though sibling names make the distinction clear.

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