get_principles

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

The description adds value by stating that the tool 'Returns structured knowledge' and can retrieve from a 'specific domain or all domains', which are behavioral traits. However, it does not elaborate on the nature of the structured knowledge, possible output size, or any limitations. Since no annotations are provided, more detail would be beneficial.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output scope. Every word contributes meaning, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations—the description is mostly complete. It covers the source (12 courses), the type of knowledge (design, UX, conversion), and the domain selection. However, it could clarify what 'structured knowledge' means as a return format, which is a minor gap.

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 fully describes the 'domain' parameter with an enum and a default value, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description only reinforces that retrieval can be from 'a specific domain or all domains', adding little beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves design, UX, and conversion principles from a specific set of courses, using the verb 'Get' and a specific resource ('principles'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like audit_conversion or get_testing_plan by focusing on principles rather than audits or test plans.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_design_process or get_ia_recommendations. It only implies a use case for obtaining principles, without any context, conditions, or exclusions.

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