get_stage_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 clearly states what the tool returns—description, prerequisites, materials, activities, supervision points, common mistakes, and safety notes—which gives a strong sense of behavior. It does not discuss error cases or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, but the "Returns" framing and tool name are sufficient for this simple read operation.

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. It fronts the primary purpose and then provides a clear list of content categories without unnecessary words or 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?

For a tool with two required enum parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough detail about the return content to guide correct invocation. It does not mention how project_type might affect the guidance or how invalid combinations are handled, but that is a minor gap for a read-only guidance tool.

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 100%, and both parameters have enum definitions with basic descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning about how stage_id or project_type interact with the returned guidance, so the schema carries the parameter semantic burden.

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, 'Returns', and clearly identifies the resource as 'detailed guidance for a construction stage'. It enumerates the types of content returned, which distinguishes it from siblings like generate_supervision_checklist and get_next_possible_stages.

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 when to use the tool: when an agent needs detailed guidance about a construction stage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as generate_supervision_checklist or get_next_possible_stages.

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