instinct

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the output format ('one bullet per rule with pattern key, category tag, confidence count, and explain text'), that it produces 'freestanding Markdown section' with 'no surrounding headers or context', and the return structure. However, it doesn't mention potential edge cases like error conditions or performance characteristics.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second describes the output format, the third clarifies the scope, and the fourth provides the crucial alternative tool guidance. The Returns section is appropriately separated but still concise. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and a detailed output schema (described in the Returns section), the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it versus alternatives, the output format, and the return structure. The presence of the output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail, and it appropriately focuses on usage guidance and behavioral context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds value by explaining that this tool renders 'rule-level patterns' without requiring any input parameters, which clarifies that it operates on existing data rather than accepting configuration. This semantic context about what the tool processes (rule patterns) goes beyond the empty schema.

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 specific action ('Render rule-level patterns as Markdown') and target resource ('ready to paste into CLAUDE.md'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling inject_claude_md by explaining that this produces freestanding output while inject_claude_md is for in-place injection. The verb 'render' and resource 'CLAUDE.md' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states 'For idempotent in-place injection into an existing CLAUDE.md (preserving other content via marker tags), use inject_claude_md() instead.' This directly names the alternative tool and specifies the different use case (freestanding output vs. in-place injection with marker preservation).

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