Get UI5 development guidelines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful signal that the content is 'curated' best practices rather than raw search results or exhaustive documentation, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as return shape or fallback behavior.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then immediately lists all supported topics. Every word 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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter, a full enum in the schema, and an output schema available. The description plus schema fully cover what the agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly; no critical context is missing.

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 schema covers the single parameter fully (topic with enum, default, and description), so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the enum values from the schema without adding additional meaning such as expected formatting, typical use cases, or interaction between topics.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a clear resource (curated UI5 development best practices), and enumerates the exact topics covered (general, views, bindings, routing, i18n, performance, security, testing). This clearly distinguishes it from specialized siblings like get_typescript_conversion_guidelines and get_integration_cards_guidelines, which are narrower in scope.

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 implies usage by listing the topics covered, and the sibling names suggest it for general UI5 guidance rather than specialized conversion or integration-card guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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