netlify-coding-rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by stating this is a mandatory pre-step before writing/editing code. It does not describe the response shape or that the main response surfaces reference files, which is only inferable from the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the imperative 'ALWAYS call', with no filler. The trailing 'etc.' slightly weakens precision, keeping it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what the agent receives (guidance text and, per the schema note, a list of reference file paths). It conveys the trigger and mandatory nature well but omits output expectations and gives no help choosing among the ambiguous enum values, leaving real gaps for a tool whose only required parameter is that enum.

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 only 50%: the required 'creationType' enum has 21 values and no schema description, and the description says nothing about how to pick one. The enum contains near-duplicate options ('serverless' vs 'netlify-functions', 'blobs' vs 'netlify-blobs', 'db' vs 'netlify-database') that the description does not disambiguate. The 'reference' parameter is documented in the schema, but the description adds no parameter meaning of its own.

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 makes clear this returns Netlify/serverless coding guidance ('coding rules' per the name) and frames it as a prerequisite step. It is a specific purpose but never explicitly says what is returned (rules text, reference files), leaving the resource implied rather than stated. Sibling tools are all unrelated reader/updater services, so differentiation is less of a concern here.

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?

Strong, explicit trigger conditions: 'ALWAYS call when writing serverless or Netlify code' and 'required step before creating or editing any type of functions, Netlify sdk/library usage'. It gives when-to-use clearly but offers no when-not guidance and does not discuss alternatives (none exist among the siblings, so this is a minor gap).

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