get_stylus_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about version-aware search and prioritization of results, but does not cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned results. This leaves gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

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 in the first sentence, followed by additional context in a second sentence. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and some behavioral context, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or performance characteristics, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description implies search functionality and version prioritization, but does not add specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'target_version' interacts with 'query' or detailing the 'rerank' algorithm. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Stylus documentation and code examples from the knowledge base'), specifying it's for finding examples, patterns, and documentation for Stylus development. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ask_stylus' or 'generate_stylus_code' by focusing on retrieval rather than generation or questioning.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to find examples, patterns, and documentation for Stylus development') and mentions version-aware search. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools, such as 'ask_stylus' for queries or 'generate_stylus_code' for code generation.

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