get_anchor

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

No annotations are provided, so description must disclose behavior. It reveals the anchor's content and size, but does not explicitly confirm read-only nature or side effects (though likely none). The name 'get' implies idempotence, but not stated.

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?

Single sentence of 20 words, immediately states action and outcome. No redundancy, efficiently front-loaded with verb and resource.

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 (2 optional params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the anchor contains and its purpose. Could include return type, but sufficient for a straightforward get tool.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context about anchor size ('1-2KB') which aligns with max_length, but no additional semantics beyond schema.

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 a compact anchor containing top 10 rules and creed hash, specifying size (1-2KB). It distinguishes from siblings like get_constitution by emphasizing compactness and quick context reinforcement.

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 'for quick context reinforcement' provides some guidance on when to use, but no explicit comparison to siblings or when-not-to-use. Consideration of alternatives like get_constitution is missing.

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