style_sniffer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that output is optional and returns text, but it does not disclose that setting an output directory writes a file (potentially overwriting unless force=true). This significant side effect is only revealed in the schema, not the description.

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 concise sentence front-loading the core action. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function and output, with no filler or unnecessary details.

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?

The description covers the high-level purpose and return behavior but omits details about file-writing side effects, the force parameter's overwrite behavior, and when to use this tool. Given no annotations or output schema, it is somewhat incomplete but sufficient for a basic understanding.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, only noting that output is optional. It does not provide additional semantic context for required workspace_dir or the force/scope parameters.

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 sniffs project code style from samples and generates PROJECT_RULES.md content, with an optional output directory. The verb 'sniff' and resource are specific, and it distinguishes the tool's purpose from generic code-quality tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 usage when style rules need to be extracted from existing code, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparable tools are mentioned.

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