get_agents_md_constraints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the parsing action and its role in enforcement, but does not mention whether it performs a read-only operation, how missing files are handled, or any potential side effects. The context about automatic enforcement adds value but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scoped to specific files. Every phrase contributes meaning, and the inspection/enforcement contrast adds valuable context without bloat.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and its relationship to PreToolUse enforcement, giving useful context. However, it omits parameter semantics and the exact return format (beyond 'declarative constraints'), which is especially important since there is no output schema. The lack of detail on expected inputs and outputs leaves gaps for an agent trying to invoke it 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?

The schema has two parameters (file_path and project_dir) with no descriptions and 0% coverage. The description does not mention either parameter, leaving their specific purpose and format ambiguous. For example, it is unclear if file_path is optional or relative to project_dir. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema guidance.

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 it parses AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md / GEMINI.md / .agents/skills/*.md and returns declarative constraints. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_constraints, which likely covers broader constraint sources.

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 notes that the data is 'Mixed into PreToolUse enforcement automatically' and that this tool 'exposes the same data for inspection,' implying it is intended for inspection/debugging rather than direct enforcement. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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