get_style_guide

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

With no annotations, the description reveals the automatic project routing behavior and the query nature, suggesting a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what happens if no project is active, or any error conditions, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the key automatic routing feature and then the main query purpose. Every sentence is necessary and without fluff, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not describe the return format, error handling, or behavior when no results are found. The deprecated 'project_directory' parameter is not addressed. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Parameter descriptions in schema cover 100% of parameters, already defining each parameter's purpose. The description adds value by explaining the automatic routing behavior for the optional 'project' parameter, clarifying that omitting it uses the active project, which goes beyond the schema's 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 clearly states the tool queries style guide rules and architectural patterns from project documentation, using the verb 'Query' and resource 'style guide rules and architectural patterns'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_codebase (which is broader) and get_team_patterns (which is team-specific) by focusing specifically on style guide documentation.

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 implies usage for querying style guide rules in the current project due to automatic routing, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., search_codebase for general search, get_team_patterns for team patterns). No when-not or explicit alternative guidance is provided.

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