acc_get_naming_standard

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only' and adds that the standard is configured in the ACC Docs UI, beyond what the readOnlyHint annotation provides. It clarifies that no modifications are possible and where the actual settings live, giving useful behavioral context.

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?

Two compact sentences, each earning its place. The first specifies core function and returned elements; the second adds the read-only note, configuration location, and a typical use case. No redundancy or fluff.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It covers the tool's read-only behavior, the source of the standard, and a practical application. For a simple getter with two clear parameters, this is complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both hub_id and project_id having straightforward descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score.

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 opens with 'Read the ACC file-naming standard configured on the project', a specific verb+resource pair. It further explains the ISO 19650 naming enforcement and lists the exact data returned (delimiter, fields, metadata codes), making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools.

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?

Provides a clear application context: 'Useful for cross-checking against the project BEP convention.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, 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.