guard_orientation

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful content scope by saying the tree is 'bounded' and that language counts and conventions files are included, but it does not explain the bounds, size limits, or whether conventions files are optional. This is helpful but not rich behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise and contains no wasted clauses. However, it is a sentence fragment rather than a structured statement, and the single phrase does not front-load an action or usage cue.

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?

With no parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return structure in detail. It sufficiently names the main outputs, though it could better explain what 'bounded' means and when an agent should call this rather than another guard tool.

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, so there are no parameter meanings for the description to clarify. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and nothing in the description creates confusion about inputs.

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 specifies the resource content clearly: a bounded repository tree, language counts, and conventions files. It does not use a verb such as 'returns' and does not differentiate this orientation step from siblings like guard_status or guard_preflight. Still, an agent can infer the tool's output scope more specifically than the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool to choose instead. The description only lists returned artifacts, leaving the agent to infer whether this is an initial orientation call or a prerequisite for other guard tools.

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