aichat_get_usage_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a 'Complete usage guide' but does not explicitly declare idempotence or lack of side effects. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 concise (3 short sentences), front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no waste, though the first two sentences are slightly redundant; still, the overall structure is excellent.

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 no parameters and an output schema exists (per context), the description is complete. It clearly explains the return value ('Complete usage guide for AiChat tools'), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (usage guide), which justifies the baseline score of 4 for tools with no 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's purpose: 'Get a comprehensive guide for using the AiChat tools.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aichat_create_conversation and aichat_list_models by focusing on documentation rather than actions.

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 for obtaining guidance ('Provides detailed information on how to use the AiChat tools effectively'), but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Nonetheless, the context is clear.

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