rails_onboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: output is a narrative walkthrough (not raw data), its scope spans full subsystems including custom rake tasks and Railties, and it implies no mutation. It omits size/cost considerations for large apps.

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, front-loaded with the purpose before usage conditions and params. The subsystem list is long but each item concretely signals coverage; it could be trimmed slightly without loss.

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?

Single optional param, full schema coverage, no output schema to explain, and annotations carrying the safety profile. The description tells an agent what it gets (a narrative covering named subsystems), when to call it, and how to control depth — everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% and the enum description already fully explains summary/standard/full, plus marks standard as the default. The description's 'Key params: detail (summary/standard/full)' only repeats the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource ('Get a narrative walkthrough of the Rails application') and enumerates the exact subsystems covered: stack, data model, auth, key flows, jobs, frontend, testing, getting started, rake tasks/generators/Railties. That breadth makes it clearly the whole-app orientation tool against the narrower sibling getters like rails_get_model_details or rails_get_config.

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?

Explicit 'Use when:' clause gives three concrete triggering situations (first encounter, onboarding a developer, orienting an AI agent). It does not name an alternative or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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