get_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that sectionIndex changes the returned content and that full guides live elsewhere, but says nothing about failure modes such as out-of-range sectionIndex or unknown guideId.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the primary behavior is stated first, the sectionIndex variation second, and the resource alternative last. Slightly dense phrasing in the first clause but no filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description should characterize returns more fully; it does sketch the two response shapes (index + intro section, or one section) but omits error/edge behavior, valid guideId forms, and index bounds. Adequate for a simple two-parameter read tool, but not complete.

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 carry the load. It explains sectionIndex meaningfully (selects a specific section vs. the index/intro) but leaves guideId as a bare name with no format hints, and gives no bounds or error semantics for out-of-range indices.

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 names a specific verb (get) and resource (guide) and precisely scopes the two modes: fetching a section index plus intro section, or reading a single section. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like list_guides or search_docs, though it does point to MCP resources as an alternative surface.

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 states the two usage modes clearly: omit sectionIndex for the index/intro, or supply sectionIndex to read one section. It also routes agents to MCP resources for full guides, which is a genuine alternative, but gives no explicit when-not conditions or guidance on choosing between this tool and search_docs.

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