get_grammar

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is markdown, but reveals no other behavioral traits like pagination or errors. It does not contradict the 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?

The description is concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence's enum list is factually inaccurate, making that sentence harmful rather than helpful.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers the parameter, but the description's error about valid sections creates a meaningful gap. It is otherwise complete enough given the output schema and annotations.

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?

The schema fully documents the parameter with a correct enum including 'all'. The description's list omits 'all' and incorrectly includes 'data', which is not in the schema. This misleading information is worse than relying on the schema alone.

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 returns the .bpc DSL grammar as markdown, giving a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like inspect_dsl, but the grammar focus is distinct enough.

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 only explains how to pass the section parameter ('no args for full grammar' or a focused subset). It gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as validate_dsl or inspect_dsl, so usage context is missing.

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