Codebase Context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool retrieves and when to use it, but lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a retrieval tool with no annotations, this is a moderate gap, as it covers basic purpose but not operational behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guideline, followed by a concise list of filters. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second gives critical usage timing, and the third details parameters efficiently. No wasted words, making it highly scannable and informative.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers purpose, usage, and parameters, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral constraints. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at response structure, which it doesn't, leaving room for improvement in contextual coverage.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds minimal value by listing the filters ('category', 'type', 'query') and their purposes, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 team conventions, architectural decisions, and known gotchas' and specifies it should be 'CALL BEFORE suggesting patterns, libraries, or architecture.' This provides a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('team conventions, architectural decisions, and known gotchas'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_style_guide' or 'get_team_patterns' by focusing on broader team knowledge rather than specific code or style rules.

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 explicitly states 'CALL BEFORE suggesting patterns, libraries, or architecture,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also implies alternatives by distinguishing its focus on team knowledge, suggesting other tools might be better for code-specific queries (e.g., 'search_codebase' for code searches). This gives explicit context and exclusions.

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