Read an AI Slop Meter guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what each guide contains, but says nothing about the size, structure, or return format of the content it pulls back.

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 front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited list; every clause maps to a parameter value and carries information. 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?

For a one-parameter documentation lookup with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and per-topic content adequately. Only the return format/size of the guide text is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 0% and there is only one parameter, but the description compensates by explaining what each enum value actually yields (e.g., 'criteria' = every check with threshold and sources; 'playbook' = the full rescue method). That adds meaning beyond the bare enum list.

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 (read) and resource (the reference guides behind AI Slop Meter), and enumerates the five distinct topics. An agent can immediately tell this apart from siblings like slop_scan, slop_rescue_plan, or slop_fix, which act on content rather than returning documentation.

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 enumeration of guide contents implies when each topic is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings (e.g., read 'criteria' before scanning, or 'playbook' before rescuing). Usage is inferred rather than directed.

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