get_fp_directive_index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which cover safety. Description adds useful context about being lightweight and returning only names, but does not disclose further behavioral aspects like pagination or performance. It adds value without contradiction.

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 12-word sentence that clearly conveys purpose. No extraneous information. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 no-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description fully explains the output (names grouped by category) and its lightweight nature. No output schema required; the description suffices.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info because none are needed.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves a 'lightweight FP directive index grouped by category (names only, not full definitions)'. The verb 'get' and specific resource are clear. It differentiates from siblings like get_all_directives and get_directives_by_category by specifying lightweight and names-only.

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 implies usage when a concise index of directive names by category is needed, but does not explicitly exclude when full definitions or ungrouped lists are required. With many sibling tools, explicit when-not guidance would improve, but the context is sufficient.

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