Get standard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a retrieval operation returning a full standard, but it does not disclose behavior such as error handling on unknown ids, response format, or any side-effect safety guarantee. The read-only nature is implied by "Return" and "get," but not explicitly stated.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior and identifier modes, followed by a single relevant usage note. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the input aliases, the retrieval purpose, and the workflow position after search. It could add a note about what happens when no standard matches, but the core information needed to call it correctly is present.

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%, so the schema already documents the single id parameter as accepting a standard id, slug, or name. The description adds matching examples, reinforcing meaning but not significantly exceeding the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a full engineering standard by id, slug, or name, with concrete examples. It is specific about the resource and identifier formats. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, but the target behavior is unambiguous.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: "Use after search to read the complete rules and checklist." This tells the agent when the tool fits in a workflow. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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