get_phase_7_5_guidance

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 discloses that the tool returns a markdown-formatted guide and outlines the content (objectives, steps, tools, expected outputs). It also mentions logging/error handling via ctx. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but this is implied.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is slightly redundant given no schema parameters, but the overall structure is clear 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 simple guidance retrieval tool, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what it returns, and the content of the guide. It lacks explicit preconditions or read-only guarantees, but these are not critical for this type of tool.

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?

There are zero parameters in the schema, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions 'ctx' as an argument, which is not listed in the schema, but is likely an internal MCP context. Since there are no actual parameters to document, the description adds minimal but acceptable context.

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 retrieves detailed guidance for Phase 7.5: Code Validation Analysis, using a specific verb (Get) and a well-defined resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_phase_7_guidance by specifying the sub-phase.

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 clear context about when to use this tool: when step-by-step guidance for conducting code validation analysis is needed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the intent is clear enough.

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