get_code_of_conduct

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating retrieval, but the description says nothing about return shape, error behavior for out-of-range indexes, or how the module relates to its sibling modules. This is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 tight sentence with the subject and scope front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical earns its place by hinting at the module's purpose.

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 one-parameter read with a fully documented schema and no output schema requirement, the description supplies the key missing context (which module and why it matters). Only marginal detail about return contents is absent.

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% — the 'index' parameter already documents the 0–6 range and the omit-for-whole-module behavior. The description only refers to 'an item' generically and adds no format or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and a specific, named resource ('an item from M4 — Code of Conduct'), plus a scope hint (single item vs. module). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_principle or get_case_study, which are likely other curriculum modules, but the named module makes it identifiable.

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 parenthetical '(lines an agent can audit itself against)' implies a use case — self-auditing against the code — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is only inferable from the framing.

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