ik_grammar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the content ('complete formal EBNF grammar') but does not explicitly mention that the tool is read-only or returns a text string. However, given the nature of a grammar reference and zero parameters, the behavior is implicitly transparent, though not fully explicit.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the tool's essence without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple reference tool and every word contributes to meaning.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fully complete for its context. It clearly indicates what the tool provides—the complete grammar—and no additional details are necessary for an agent to effectively use it.

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 and the input schema is empty, so the description has no need to explain parameter semantics. Per the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline score of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented fields.

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 the tool provides the complete formal EBNF grammar of the ik language, which identifies the resource precisely. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ik_reference or ik_compiler_reference by specifying the grammar specifically, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'displays'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ik_reference or ik_tutorial. It neither mentions scenarios for use nor excludes any, leaving the agent to infer that it is for grammar lookups. This is minimal guidance, akin to no explicit usage direction.

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