aethis_add_guidance

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds a behavioral note: the guidance applies to domain knowledge absent from source text, and implies adding it affects future generation steps. It does not cover authentication, side effects, or whether existing guidance is replaced. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by usage scope and the next step. No waste; 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?

The tool has no output schema and annotations are moderate. The description gives a basic workflow but omits important details like whether the call is synchronous, whether it replaces existing guidance, and what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with openWorldHint, more context would be expected.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description need not explain parameters. It hints at the purpose of guidance_text ('domain knowledge not in the source text') but adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Add a guidance hint to a project.' This is clear and actionable. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling aethis_add_domain_guidance, which sounds like it may overlap, but the core operation is 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?

Explicitly says to use this for 'domain knowledge not in the source text' and directs the agent to call aethis_generate_and_test afterward. This provides clear context and a follow-up action, though it offers no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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