project_guidelines_get

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

With no annotations, the description covers the key aspect: guidelines are managed via DevFlow UI and stored in backend. It also mentions the auto-linking behavior. It lacks details on permissions or output format, but for a read operation it is sufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words. Highly concise.

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 simple get tool, the description covers the purpose, source, and auto-linking. It could mention what happens if no guidelines exist, but overall is complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema info about projectId without adding new semantic value.

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 project-specific guidelines in markdown format. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'project_guidelines_update' by focusing on reading. The behavior when projectId is omitted is also specified.

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 description explains that projectId is optional and automatically uses the linked project, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly compare to other tools or state when to avoid this tool.

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