read_guidelines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the optional guidelines_path and default behavior, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe side effects. The guardrail about vault_write is a behavioral rule but relates to another tool.

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 concise with four structured sentences: purpose, usage, guardrail, parameter explanation. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value, though the guardrail could be considered extraneous to the tool definition.

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 (one optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. The guardrail provides additional context for safe usage, making it informationally complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains the parameter: 'guidelines_path is optional — omit to use CODELORE_GUIDELINES_PATH, or pass a path directly to read any guidelines document without reconfiguring.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's default value.

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 it returns architectural guidelines and coding conventions, with specific verb 'Return' and resource 'project's architectural guidelines'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., explore_repo, search_code) by focusing on guidelines and conventions.

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 lists explicit use cases: 'questions about coding style, architectural patterns, conventions, how to structure new code, or what rules the project follows.' It provides clear context for when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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