jcodemunch_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently describes a read operation with no contradiction. It adds valuable context beyond the annotations: idempotency, that no repo context is required, and that output dynamically matches the current tool surface, tier, and disabled_tools configuration.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence earns its place: the drift-prevention use case, idempotency/no-repo-context, and the config-matching behavior. It is slightly dense — four ideas in one block — but efficient with no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is thorough: it covers return content, the rationale, safety (idempotent, read-only), and the config-sensitive output behavior. The only minor omission is a concrete sketch of the returned snippet's shape, but given tool simplicity this is not a material 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object (100% coverage trivially), so the schema leaves nothing to explain. Per rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description adds the useful note that no repo context is required, reinforcing the no-input contract.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') plus a precise resource: the version-current CLAUDE.md/AGENT.md policy snippet generated by `jcodemunch-mcp claude-md --generate`. This is clearly distinct from its siblings (set_tool_tier, announce_model, menu, order, route), which are all operational actions, so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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 explains why and when to call it: to keep a one-line CLAUDE.md instead of a static snippet that drifts from the installed version, and notes 'no repo context required' so it can be invoked standalone. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the clean use-case motivation covers the main guidance need.

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