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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool queries documentation but doesn't reveal critical traits: whether it's read-only (implied by 'Query' but not explicit), how results are returned (e.g., list, structured data), if there are rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Query style guide rules and architectural patterns') without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly. No redundancy or fluff is present.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on behavior, output format, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer operational details, leaving gaps in completeness for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 both parameters (query and category) with descriptions and requirements. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, provide examples beyond the schema's hints, or clarify semantics like how 'category' filtering works. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('style guide rules and architectural patterns from project documentation'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_codebase or get_component_usage by focusing on documentation-based style rules rather than code analysis or metadata. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_team_patterns, which might overlap in scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., during code review or design phases), or exclusions (e.g., not for live code queries). With siblings like search_codebase and get_team_patterns that could serve similar needs, the lack of differentiation leaves usage ambiguous.

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