get_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the unknown-topic behavior (error lists all available topics) and clarifies that the topic maps to a filename without extension. It doesn't mention output formatting or side effects, but for a simple read-only retrieval this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: purpose is front-loaded, the parameter format is stated compactly, and the sibling distinction is included. Every sentence adds value.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, failure behavior, and the relevant alternative. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully defines the single parameter: topic is the filename under guides/ without .md, and notes that unknown topics produce an error listing all valid topics. This is complete semantic coverage.

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 ('返回') and resource ('策略文档全文'), and defines the input as a topic corresponding to a filename under guides/. It also explicitly differentiates itself from get_doc_kind, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: use get_doc_kind for document-type-specific templates/specifications, and not this tool ('不在这里'). This is a clear when-not and alternative, leaving no ambiguity about which sibling to choose.

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