fish_get_usage_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a 'Complete usage guide', which tells the user the primary output. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or non-destructive, but that is obvious for a guide tool. It could mention that no state is changed, but the description adequately conveys its non-mutating nature.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The 'Returns:' line somewhat duplicates the initial statement but is short. Overall, every sentence contributes useful information, and there is little fluff.

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 tool is a simple guide with no parameters and a self-explanatory output. An output schema exists but isn't detailed in the prompt, so the description's mention of 'parameters, examples, and best practices' gives adequate context about the content of the returned guide. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are no parameters to explain, which is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('usage guide for Fish TTS tools'), and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools that perform actual TTS operations or model queries. It explicitly states this is a guide for using the Fish tools, making its purpose 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need guidance on how to use the Fish TTS tools effectively. It mentions parameters, examples, and best practices, which signals the type of information provided. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a guide tool this context is sufficient.

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