get_best_practices

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 does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, lacks authentication or rate-limit details, and does not describe any side effects. The description only covers output content, missing key behavioral traits.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and includes a clear usage directive. No redundant or extraneous words; every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and output content. The lack of behavioral details is noted in transparency, but overall completeness is high given the tool's simplicity.

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% with a descriptive parameter 'topic' that includes examples. The description adds value by explaining what the response will contain (patterns, anti-patterns, etc.), helping the agent understand the parameter's impact beyond the schema.

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 the tool retrieves Ember best practices and recommendations, listing specific content types (modern patterns, anti-patterns, performance tips). It distinguishes from sibling tools (npm, version, docs) by focusing on implementation advice, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly advises 'Always use this when providing implementation advice,' providing a strong usage context. However, it does not specify when to avoid this tool or recommend alternatives (e.g., search_ember_docs for general documentation), slightly limiting clarity.

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