get_lifecycle_reference

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the output (lifecycle methods and when each fires) and the 'Get' verb implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It lacks explicit statements about return format or side effects, but for a pure reference tool, the disclosure is adequate.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the action ('Get') and includes the key resource and specificity. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what will be returned: lifecycle methods and their firing times. It could explicitly state the return format (e.g., 'returns a list'), but that is not essential for a reference lookup.

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 the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The description correctly adds no parameter semantics since none exist, and the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource (StencilJS component lifecycle methods) and the informational detail ('with when each fires'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools (detect_stencil_version, get_decorator_reference, get_best_practices) by targeting a distinct aspect of StencilJS.

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 clearly implies the tool is used to retrieve lifecycle method timing for StencilJS components. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose is contextually clear and self-contained, which is sufficient for a simple reference lookup tool.

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