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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is already covered. The description adds valuable context by explaining that these are finished stories intended as starting points for adaptation, which is behavioral insight beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't discuss return format or pagination, but that's minor given the annotation coverage.

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 two sentences: the first defines the resource with vivid examples, the second outlines the intended usage sequence. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description sufficiently explains what the tool lists and how to use the result. It provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role in a workflow without needing more.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately does not fabricate parameter details. It focuses on what the tool returns conceptually, which is relevant for a parameterless listing 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 states a specific verb (list) and resource (finished guide examples) and paints what those examples are with concrete illustrations (wildfire spreading, euro year by year, bar chart race). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like studio_list_templates or studio_list_capabilities, which serve different purposes.

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?

It explicitly describes a usage pattern: start from an example with studio_create_project, then adapt with studio_apply_actions. This guides the agent on when and how to use the tool in a workflow. However, it doesn't state when not to use it or mention alternatives like studio_list_templates, so it's clear but not fully exclusionary.

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