get_agent_instructions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It says the tool returns the manual contents and is intended for remote sessions, but it does not mention authentication needs, side effects, idempotency, or whether the call is safe/read-only. For a simple getter this is adequate but incomplete.

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?

Front-loads the tool's purpose and usage guidance in a compact structure. The 'Returns:' section repeats what the output schema already provides, which is mildly redundant, but the overall description remains efficient and easy to parse.

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 low-complexity and has an output schema, so the description need not explain the return value. It covers what the tool does and when to use it, though the absence of annotations leaves a small gap around permissions or execution context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to add.

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: 'Return the full AGENTS.md operating manual for AI agents.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from data-query siblings like get_context or auth_context, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Call this at the start of a remote session') and the condition that selects it ('when AGENTS.md cannot be read from the filesystem'). No alternative tool is named, but the condition implicitly rules out filesystem access, which is sufficient guidance.

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