get_quick_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't describe how the documentation is returned (e.g., format, structure, or pagination), whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose ('Get the quick reference documentation') and adds clarifying scope ('all coding rules') without unnecessary details, making it easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'quick reference documentation' entails (e.g., format, content structure) or the return behavior, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's output. For a tool with rich context (siblings like 'search_docs'), more guidance is needed.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as no compensation is needed.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('quick reference documentation') with a specific scope ('all coding rules'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_checklist' or 'get_templates' by focusing on coding rules documentation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'read_doc' or 'search_docs' which might also retrieve 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_doc' or 'search_docs' for documentation retrieval. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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