lv_cyber_get_guidance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and reference format, with no information about return content, error handling, or any operational nuances. This is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about what a fetch actually returns.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, includes a practical example, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 one-parameter get tool, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter format. However, it does not explain return values (no output schema exists), nor does it reference sibling tools to guide selection. It is adequate but leaves gaps in an otherwise simple context.

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 schema fully covers the parameter 'reference' with a basic description, but the tool description adds a concrete format example ('CERT-LV-G-2023-001'), which is valuable for constructing valid inputs. This exceeds the schema's minimal guidance.

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 action (Get), the resource (specific CERT.LV guidance document), and the method (by reference), with an explicit example format. It inherently distinguishes from sibling tools like search_guidance (search vs. fetch) and get_advisory (guidance vs. advisory).

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 use when you have a specific reference ID, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives such as lv_cyber_search_guidance for searching or lv_cyber_get_advisory for advisories. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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