Adapter setup

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses provenance/staleness of snippets ('reflect the README at the time this server was built; when release_status is untagged, re-check the repository'), error behavior instead of raising, and that no Guard libraries need be installed. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then usage routing, then return details. Every sentence carries information, though the multi-line return inventory overlaps with the output schema that already exists, so it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

An agent has everything needed: what it returns, when it errors, how fresh the data is, and that no dependencies are required. Because an output schema exists, the extra return prose is bonus rather than obligation, and nothing material is missing.

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%, so language and framework are already fully documented, including allowed values and error-on-unknown behavior. The description only reinforces that the pair selects a single adapter and that unknown values yield an error object, which duplicates rather than extends the 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get the install command and a verified minimal integration for one Guard adapter.' The scope ('one Guard adapter', keyed by language+framework) is stated precisely and clearly distinguishes it from the survey tool (ecosystem) and the telemetry tool (wire_agent).

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when you know the language and web framework and want working setup code') plus named alternatives with their selecting conditions: 'Use ecosystem instead to survey every adapter, and wire_agent to set up telemetry.' Nothing left to inference.

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