doctrine

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a retrieval tool (no side effects implied) but does not mention auth, rate limits, or response details. The phrase 'without threads dying quietly' adds some context but is not explicit about safety.

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 short (two sentences plus a tier line) and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value except possibly 'Tier: public' which is redundant. No wasted text, but could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given no output schema, description should clarify return values. It mentions each rule has why and lint check but not structure or format. For a simple retrieval tool with one optional parameter, it is moderately complete but lacks detail on response.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It states 'Call with no argument for all' for the optional rule parameter, but does not explain allowed values, format, or how specific rules are specified. The default value is hinted but semantics are minimal.

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 that doctrine is a set of rules for running life or agents out of files, with each rule including rationale and lint checks. It distinguishes itself from siblings like guide and about by specifying its focus on ops-lint's hygiene rules, making the purpose specific and identifiable.

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 gives explicit usage instruction ('Call with no argument for all') but does not provide when-not-to-use or compare with alternative tools. The context implies it is for retrieving doctrine rules, but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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