stack

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 only mentions 'Tier: public' which hints at access, but does not disclose whether the tool reads data, checks code, or produces output. No side effects or behaviors are described.

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) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. The information is minimal and could be more informative without adding length.

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?

With no output schema and multiple siblings, the description should clarify what this tool uniquely offers. It fails to differentiate from 'guide', 'doctrine', or 'projects', making it incomplete for an agent to decide which tool to invoke.

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 input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing to add beyond the schema. The description provides some context about the tool's content (languages, patterns, discipline), which is acceptable for a parameterless tool.

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 'Languages, architectural patterns, and engineering discipline — the checkable kind' is abstract and does not clearly state what action the tool performs or what resource it provides. It could be documentation, a linter, or a reference, but the purpose is vague, especially when compared to siblings like 'guide' or 'doctrine'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. Among tools like 'guide', 'doctrine', and 'design_decisions', there is potential overlap, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative mentions.

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