Get Engineering Standard

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation and the list of standards sets expectations for what can be fetched, but the description does not disclose the return format, error behavior, or whether the full standard text is returned, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with no output schema.

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 clear sentence followed by a necessary list of allowed values. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place despite the unavoidable length of the standard list.

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 simple one-parameter get tool, the description adequately conveys what it does and enumerates all possible inputs. The only gap is the lack of detail about return content or output format, but that is minor for a retrieval tool and no output schema exists.

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 description coverage is 100%: the schema already defines the 'standard' parameter with a full enum and a description. The description repeats the same list of standards in prose, which adds readability but no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('a specific engineering standard'), and enumerates all 15 available standards. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling review tools, which focus on branch names, commit messages, and staff engineer review rather than standard retrieval.

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 its usage by listing the valid standards, so an agent can tell it is for retrieving one of those named standards. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over the sibling review tools, nor does it state any exclusions or alternative routing.

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