get_technique_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states it returns a guide and accepts a category filter, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. It does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or other traits beyond the obvious.

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 plus an args list, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently explains the parameter.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the main purpose and filtering. It could mention that the guide is a list of techniques, but the schema likely provides structure.

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 one parameter with no enums or description. The description adds value by listing allowed category values ('reasoning', 'workflow', 'code', 'project', 'all'), providing meaning missing from the schema (schema coverage 0%).

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 returns a guide to Context Engineering techniques and is used to discover the best tool for a given task. The nickname 'The Librarian' reinforces the purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_cell_protocol or analyze_task_complexity.

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 says 'Use this to discover the best tool for a given task,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide exclusions vs. siblings.

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