query_specific_standard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Query' strongly implies a read-only operation, which is helpful, but the description does not elaborate on potential side effects, required permissions, or the nature of the returned data. Since it is a simple query tool, this minimal transparency is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or repetition. Every word adds value.

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 query tool with an output schema, the description provides a basic understanding. However, it lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings and omits any mention of the optional session_id and project_root parameters. This makes the description minimally complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It implicitly explains 'section_name' via 'directly by name', but completely ignores 'session_id' and 'project_root'. Given that there are three parameters and only one is touched, the description does not sufficiently bridge the gap left by the schema.

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 action ('Query'), the target resource ('specific section of the rulebook'), and the method ('directly by name'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that suggest broader guidance or validation, such as get_engineering_guidance or validate_against_standards.

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 'directly by name' provides clear context: use this tool when you know the exact section name and want to retrieve that section. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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