ArchScript language guide

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating call, so the description's main added value is that the content is a language reference intended to be read prior to authoring. It does not say what the response looks like (full document text? sectioned?), which is the one behavioral detail left undisclosed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the subject and then a scoped content list. The parenthetical enumeration of the six container types is slightly long but signals coverage clearly, and the final imperative sentence adds actionable direction rather than filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only reference tool with no output schema, the description covers what it contains and when to consult it. The only minor gap is the absence of any hint about the form or size of the returned guide, which would help an agent plan its context budget.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 the resource precisely (the ArchScript language guide) and enumerates its scope: syntax, element types, containers, relations, properties, rules, custom types, and edit operations. An agent can immediately tell this is reference documentation rather than an action tool, distinguishing it from siblings like create_document or validate.

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?

'Read this before writing ArchScript' gives a clear triggering condition tied to authoring workflows (set_document_source/edit_document). There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous for a reference tool.

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