workflow_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a one-time, likely read-only guide call, but it does not state what the tool returns, whether it has side effects, or how its output should be used. The 'Call it once' note is useful but leaves the agent guessing about the actual response.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, gives useful content highlights, and ends with an actionable usage directive. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter informational tool, the description adequately covers what the guide is about and when to invoke it. It does not describe the output format or explicitly link to sibling documentation tools, but the simplicity of the tool means this is not a critical gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is complete, so parameter-level semantics are not needed. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is required. This matches the baseline expected score for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies the tool as a guide for using DevCDP effectively, covering the observe/act division, debugging workflow, and known pitfalls. It is not a tautology and its role as an orientation/guide tool is distinct from the more granular debugger, DOM, and session tools among the siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call it once at the start of a debugging session.' This tells the agent the tool is an initial orientation step rather than a per-action utility. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with docs_search/docs_outline, but the usage context is clear.

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