angular_component_standards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does clarify the two return modes (all standards vs. category list vs. filtered set), but says nothing about whether the content is static reference material, caching, or freshness. For a read-only reference tool this is adequate but thin.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the mandatory-call warning, then purpose, then retrieval modes. No filler, though the ⚠️ prefix and 'REQUIRED TOOL' capitalization are stylistic rather than informational.

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 2-parameter read-only standards lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and retrieval modes well. It could note that no output schema exists and what the standards payload roughly looks like, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the example categories and the listCategories behavior. The description's 'filter by specific category' adds no syntax or nuance beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns Angular component standards and best practices.' The word 'component' scopes it away from siblings like angular_forms_standards and design_system_standards, though the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Must be called before creating or modifying any Angular component' gives an explicit trigger condition, which is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming when not to use it or pointing to sibling tools for adjacent topics (forms, data fetching, models).

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