modal_best_practices

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It mentions that it can retrieve all or filter by category, but doesn't state whether it's read-only (implied), whether it has side effects, authentication needs, or what the return looks like. The 'REQUIRED' label is a behavioral constraint, but the description lacks other critical details for a tool with no annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the imperative requirement and then the functionality. It's efficient and each sentence adds value, though the warning emoji and 'REQUIRED TOOL' could be seen as slightly redundant given the explicit 'Must be called' in the same sentence.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description covers the basics (what it returns, how to filter) but doesn't explain the return format or whether the best practices are static or dynamic. It's adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters in detail. The description only vaguely mentions filtering by category, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: returns best practices for creating and managing modals/dialogs. It also names the specific technologies (DialogService, BaseDialogComponent, ds-modal, rxMethod), which distinguishes it from siblings like angular_component_standards. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It says 'Must be called before implementing modals or dialogs' but doesn't explain when to use it versus other standards tools (e.g., design_system_standards). The requirement is clear, but no alternatives are mentioned and no exclusions are given.

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