get_directive_by_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing that when project_root is provided, it retrieves preferences from user_preferences.db and linked notes from project.db. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the purpose concisely, and the second provides a critical usage instruction. Every word is justified, and the most important guidance is front-loaded.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is loaded (workflow steps, preferences, linked notes) and conditional behavior. It is complete enough for an agent, but lacks explicit mention of the return format or structure.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds meaning by explaining the conditional behavior of project_root (retrieving additional data), which is not fully captured in the schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Load' and the resource 'directive's workflow steps, preferences, and linked notes by name.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_directive_content by emphasizing it as the authoritative source to call before executing any workflow.

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 explicitly instructs 'ALWAYS call BEFORE executing any workflow' and states 'directives are the authoritative source, not memory,' providing strong contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list specific alternatives.

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