format_entry_guide

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns a guide with specific content (archetypes, staples, rules summary), but does not describe return format or behavior beyond that. With annotations covering safety, a score of 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?

The description consists of two concise sentences. It front-loades the primary purpose and immediately lists the key outputs. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (archetypes sorted by budget, staples, rules summary) and mentions the verbosity option. It does not detail the exact format of output, but the openWorldHint accounts for variability. A small gap in completeness but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that the budget parameter filters archetypes by budget accessibility and that response_format controls verbosity, tying the parameters to the tool's purpose. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it is a beginner-oriented guide for entering a competitive format, listing specific outputs (archetypes sorted by budget, cross-archetype staples, format rules summary). This distinguishes it from siblings like archetype_comparison or bulk_format_staples.

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 for beginners entering a format, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like archetype_comparison or goldfish_format_staples. It lacks explicit 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.