Bounded context packet for a task

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/null-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond them: the packet is deterministic and mirrors a CLI invocation, and the tool voluntarily abstains under weak relevance. This materially helps an agent predict 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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, but it front-loads a CLI equivalence ('same ... as docguard agent --task ...') that is only useful if the agent knows the CLI, slightly delaying the substantive content enumeration.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by enumerating the packet's components. Combined with annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the sibling-routing guidance 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (task, projectDir) are fully documented in the schema including the served-directory default rule. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete deliverable ('deterministic packet') and enumerates its contents: task-linked requirements, code/test pointers, excerpts, verification steps. That is specific enough to separate it from a scoring or verification tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like docguard_docs_for_path or docguard_score.

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?

It notes the tool 'abstains when relevance is weak,' which hints at when results are empty, but there is no statement of when to reach for this tool rather than the ten sibling tools. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and payload description.

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