AAA checklist

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only'. It adds genuinely new context the annotations cannot carry: the output format, the category grouping, the per-line rule+fix shape, and the premium-profile variation that adds id and severity.

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?

A single tight paragraph that front-loads what is returned, then when to read it, then the sibling redirect, then the read-only note. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.

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 parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description fills exactly the gaps that matter: the return format, the category grouping, the premium-profile difference, and the boundary against godot_review. An agent can select and call it correctly from this text alone.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly describes no inputs and instead spends its words on output shape, which is the only semantic a caller needs here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the fixed AAA checklist that godot_review applies') and immediately characterizes the payload (plain text grouped by category, one line per rule with its fix). It is unambiguous against the sibling godot_review, which it explicitly names as the tool that checks a project.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases ('before writing code to know the rules', 'look up a rule id from a finding') and an explicit exclusion plus redirect ('It does not look at the project; to check the project against these rules, use godot_review'). Nothing is left to inference.

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