doc-bot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation ('Get'), returns comprehensive standards, and these rules are authoritative ('override general best practices'). However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, which would be helpful given no output schema.

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, starting with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, such as usage context and authority of the rules. It could be slightly more concise by merging some clauses, but overall it's efficient and well-structured.

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 authoritative guidelines) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and behavioral context. It explains what the tool returns and its importance, though it could benefit from mentioning response structure or pagination details to fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'page' parameter well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3. It doesn't compensate for any gaps, but none exist due to high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get comprehensive coding standards and architecture guidelines') and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it returns 'project-wide engineering principles' that 'override general best practices' and are 'specific to THIS codebase.' This differentiates it from tools like 'check_project_rules' or 'search_documentation' by focusing on overarching guidelines rather than specific checks or searches.

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: 'when making ANY architectural decision, not just at project start' and lists specific scenarios ('starting work, making design decisions, resolving conflicts between approaches, or when implementation feels uncertain'). It also implicitly suggests alternatives by noting these rules 'override general best practices,' implying other tools might handle more general cases.

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