aaa_mandatory_read_first_guidelines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses meaningful traits: it.is a retrieval operation ('Returns'), the rules are authoritative ('mandatory'), and calling order matters ('Call this FIRST'). It also scopes the content to 'this specific SAMP project.' It does't explicitly state that it is side-effect-free or describe failure behavior, but those are minor for a read-only, 0-param tool.

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?

A single 17-word sentence with the critical directive 'CRITICAL: Call this FIRST' front-loaded ahead of the resource description. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 0-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent when to call ('FIRST'), what it will receive (encoding and language rules), and the scope (this SAMP project). The only minor gap is that it does't describe the format of the returned rules, but the return value is the content itself and the description already identifies it.

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?

The tool accepts 0 parameters, so the baseline 4 applies and there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The schema is already empty with 100% coverage, so nothing parameter-related is missing from the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a concrete resource: 'the mandatory encoding and language rules for this specific SAMP project.' It clearly states what the tool does and scopes it to the current project. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_coding_standards, but the 'Call this FIRST' directive and 'aaa_' name prefix set it apart as the mandatory entry-point tool.

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 instruction 'CRITICAL: Call this FIRST.' provides explicit ordering guidance, making this a prerequisite before any sibling project tools are used. It does't name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a 0-parameter guideline-retrieval tool the first-call directive is unambiguous and actionable, matching 'clear context, no exclusions.'

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