rust_get_practice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention what happens on invalid input, potential effects, or response format. While the tool is a simple read operation, the description does not confirm safety or error handling.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It is efficient, though additional structured details could improve clarity without becoming verbose.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but omits details like response format or error handling. For a simple retrieval tool, a 3 is reasonable but could be improved.

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% with the 'name' parameter description providing example values. The tool description adds 'with code examples' but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score is appropriate as description adds minimal value.

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 specifies 'Get a Rust best practice with code examples', identifying the verb ('Get') and resource ('Rust best practice'). It differentiates from sibling tools like rust_list_practices (list) and rust_get_pattern (pattern) by focusing on practices with code examples.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool name and sibling context (e.g., use rust_list_practices to discover practices first), but the description does not state this or provide exclusion criteria.

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