get_constraints

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the read operation but omits details on error handling (e.g., missing file), default behavior for optional constraint_types, authentication needs, or return structure.

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 sentence with 10 words, efficiently conveying the core purpose without extraneous detail. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify the return format, default behavior when constraint_types is omitted, prerequisites, or how this tool differs from siblings like 'get_agents_md_constraints'.

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 0%. The description adds context for constraint_types (listing examples) but does not explain file_path format (absolute/relative) or the meaning of each enum value. The optional nature of constraint_types is not clarified.

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 'Get', resource 'constraints', and scope 'for a file'. It provides examples of constraint types (linting rules, patterns, conventions), making the purpose distinct from siblings like 'get_agents_md_constraints' which targets a specific file type.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_agents_md_constraints', 'resolve_contradiction'). There are no explicit contexts, exclusions, or recommendations provided.

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