get_courtyard_violations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as whether it runs a new DRC or queries existing results, but this is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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?

One short, direct sentence that states the tool's purpose without waste. It is immediately understandable and appropriately sized.

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 simple no-parameter read-only tool with a defined output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool returns, and the output schema covers return value details.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no confusion.

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 'Return only courtyard issues from DRC' uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('courtyard issues from DRC'), clearly distinguishing it from broader DRC tools like run_drc and other violation-specific siblings such as get_silk_to_pad_violations. It precisely states its scope.

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 phrase 'only courtyard issues' implies this tool is for filtering DRC results to courtyard-specific problems, giving some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the 'only' phrasing effectively excludes general DRC checks.

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