get_coding_standards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose output format, possible failure modes, or prerequisites beyond the current connection to a SAMP project. This is acceptable for a simple getter but not highly transparent.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and clearly states the resource and scope.

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 no-parameter read tool, the description is largely complete: an agent can invoke it without further clarification. The main gap is the lack of explicit detail about what the returned 'coding standards and patterns' will look like, especially since no output schema is provided.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the parameter baseline is already high. The description still adds useful context by scoping the result to the 'currently connected SAMP project,' which helps the agent understand what implicit context is used.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: 'coding standards and patterns for the currently connected SAMP project.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rules, get_status, or read_pawn_script, and gives the agent a precise idea of what the tool returns.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need the project's coding standards or patterns. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, what it should be preferred over, or how it relates to other inspection tools in the sibling list.

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