glm_get_usage_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Returns: Complete usage guide for GLM tools,' which indicates the output, but it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or whether the guide is static or dynamically generated. This is minimally adequate for a read-only documentation tool.

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 somewhat repetitive: the first sentence says 'Get a comprehensive guide,' the second says 'Provides detailed information,' and the third repeats 'Complete usage guide.' It is front-loaded and short, but the redundancy means not every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the purpose and the return value. It could add guidance on when to call it relative to other GLM tools, but this is not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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 the baseline is 4. The description mentions 'parameters' as part of the guide's content, but this is not a parameter-semantics issue for the tool itself. No further explanation is needed.

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+resource: 'Get a comprehensive guide for using the GLM tools,' and further details the content ('parameters, examples, and best practices'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like glm_list_models and glm_chat_completions.

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 makes the tool's purpose evident: it is for obtaining a guide to using GLM tools effectively. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools are clearly different in function.

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