The Trood block for CLAUDE.md

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious constraints: the tool never edits files itself and the agent must get consent before adding the block. That is real context beyond the structured fields, though return format is still unspecified.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the purpose and consent constraint are front-loaded before the variant detail. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, variant behavior, and the write-permission boundary. A brief note that the return value is markdown text ready to paste would close the last gap.

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 coverage is already 100% and the enum is documented, so the baseline would be 3; the description earns above baseline by explaining what each variant actually does behaviorally rather than just restating 'beginner or pro'.

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 names the concrete artifact (a short block for the project's CLAUDE.md) and its goal (sessions know when to use Trood and how much to say), which is specific enough to separate it from siblings like set_trood_level or get_trood_levels. The verb is only implied ('a short block to add'), so the agent infers 'get' rather than reading it.

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 variant semantics are spelled out ('beginner' routes most environment questions to Trood; 'pro' keeps Trood to facts), and the follow-up workflow is explicit: show it to the person and add it only with their yes. It doesn't contrast this against a sibling such as set_trood_level, but for a single-parameter retrieval tool the context is clear.

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