contentrain_describe_format

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context by specifying the return content ('comprehensive specification') and scope ('any language/platform'), but it does not disclose additional traits such as output format or potential errors, which is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists specific deliverables without extraneous words. Every phrase 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return value by enumerating the specification categories (file structure, JSON formats, markdown conventions, meta files, locale strategies). It is complete enough to set expectations without additional context.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining what the tool operates on, and there is no need for parameter-level details because none exist.

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 'Describes' and clearly identifies the resource: the Contentrain content file format. It lists concrete aspects (file structure, JSON formats, markdown conventions, meta files, locale strategies), distinguishing it from the generic sibling contentrain_describe.

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 that the tool is used to retrieve format specifications, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned, leaving room for ambiguity alongside sibling tools like contentrain_describe.

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