rtl_guidelines

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

No annotations and no parameters, so the behavioral burden is light and the description says enough to know it is a reference lookup. It does not disclose the size, format, or structure of the returned guidelines, which matters for a 'Full guidelines' payload.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with what is returned, and the parenthetical adds the alternative-access detail without padding. Slightly dense but every clause earns its place.

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-argument reference tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description identifies content and audience completely. Only the return payload's shape and volume are unspecified, a minor 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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline for a no-param tool applies.

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 resource and its scope: full RTL frontend guidelines for Persian/Arabic UIs. That distinguishes it from sibling converters/auditors (rtl_convert_css, rtl_audit_css), though the verb is implicit rather than front-loaded.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers 'use this when you need the guidelines.' The parenthetical points to an alternative access modality (prompt and resource), which is mild routing help, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over the rtl_* conversion/audit siblings.

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