doc-bot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns 'architecture patterns, security requirements, and performance guidelines specific to this codebase' and emphasizes its preventive role ('Prevents rework by catching violations early'). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or error conditions.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: it explains usage timing, return content, benefits, and relationship to other tools. However, it could be slightly more concise by combining some of the repetitive usage instructions.

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 the tool's complexity (providing coding standards) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It covers purpose, usage context, and behavioral expectations adequately, though it doesn't specify the exact format of returned rules.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'task' parameter with examples. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how the task parameter affects the returned rules). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema provides complete parameter documentation.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Get mandatory coding standards for your task.' It specifies the resource ('coding standards') and verb ('Get'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by contrasting with doc_bot() for project context. This is specific and clearly differentiates its role.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call BEFORE writing ANY code AND whenever you start a new component/feature/file.' It also specifies alternatives ('you should ALSO call doc_bot()') and clarifies the distinction between this tool and doc_bot. This includes clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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