Review ST Code (naming conventions)

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

Annotations already show read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds value: returns only violations, not reference dumps, includes quick-reference table. No contradiction.

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?

Succinct multi-line description with front-loaded purpose and bullet-like list of checks. Some redundancy (e.g., 'immediately after writing' could be concise).

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?

Simple tool with one input and no output schema; description covers purpose, usage, checks, and output behavior. Could clarify what happens with no violations (likely empty result) but sufficient.

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?

Parameter 'code' is fully described in schema (100% coverage). Description adds no extra parameter depth beyond the schema's own description.

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?

Description clearly states it validates ST code against naming conventions and lists specific checks (Hungarian notation, POU prefixes, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like explain_error_code or st_find_references.

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: immediately after writing or editing any ST code' provides clear context. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling list is provided separately.

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