get_dimensions_rubric

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read-only 'Return' operation and identifies the resource, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., what the output contains, whether special permissions are needed, or any side effects). For a zero-parameter getter this is adequate but minimal.

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 conveys the essential action and target resource without any wasted words.

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 (zero parameters, output schema present), the description sufficiently identifies what is returned. It loses one point because it does not explain the acronym EFF or how this rubric relates to sibling tools, which would help an agent in a broader workflow.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema is empty with 100% schema coverage, so the description need not elaborate on parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' with a precise resource: 'EFF rubric and dimension definitions' plus the protocol URI (eff://dimensions). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_eff_resources, which lists resources rather than returning the rubric definitions.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs the EFF rubric/dimension definitions, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or references to alternative sibling tools. The URI hint adds context but doesn't fully clarify when to choose this over list_eff_resources.

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