get_coding_guidelines

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read operation but does not specify error handling (e.g., when domain or language is invalid), authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a retrieval tool, details on result format or potential absence of data are missing.

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 extremely concise at one sentence and eight words. It front-loads the core purpose, but omits usage guidance and behavioral details that could justify additional length. For a minimal viable description, it is efficient but could include a brief usage hint without becoming verbose.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description fails to provide necessary context. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of rules, formatted text, or JSON), how to handle missing data, or any constraints. For a retrieval tool with two parameters, the description is insufficient for an agent to use it reliably.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema with clear, self-explanatory descriptions ('Domain name', 'Programming language'). The tool description adds no additional nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate for 100% schema coverage.

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 that the tool retrieves coding guidelines and security rules for a domain, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_code_security or security_threat_model, which focus on analysis rather than retrieval. However, it could be more precise about what constitutes 'guidelines' and 'security rules'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or cases where alternatives like analyze_code_security or security_threat_model would be more appropriate.

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