se_cyber_get_guidance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves a document by reference, but does not explain what happens if the reference is invalid, whether the document content is returned fully or partially, or any authentication requirements. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and input format without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 a simple interface with one parameter and no output schema. However, the description does not explain what the output (the guidance document) contains—e.g., title, version, content, metadata. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more context about the return value would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'reference' parameter. The tool description adds value by providing concrete examples of valid references, which clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's generic 'MSB document reference' description.

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 BSI guidance document'), and the method ('by reference'). It provides concrete examples of valid references, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like se_cyber_search_guidance.

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 that the tool should be used when the user knows the exact reference for a BSI guidance document. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, the purpose is clear enough in context with the sibling tools. It could be improved by stating 'for searching, use se_cyber_search_guidance instead'.

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