get_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what each detail level returns (metadata, parts, tools, step titles vs. full rendered text), that max_steps is ignored in summary mode, and includes a WARNING about responses exceeding 250KB. It also discloses the iFixit CC BY-NC-SA data license and non-commercial restriction, which is critical context for usage.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, then paragraph explanations, then a labeled Args list. Every sentence adds value — the warnings, the max_steps caveat, and the licensing note are all necessary. It's detailed but not redundant, hitting the right balance for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, one required, and the description covers all of them with examples and caveats. The presence of an output schema handles return value details, so the description doesn't need to list them. It covers edge cases (max_steps ignored in summary, large response sizes) and licensing, making it fully complete for correct invocation.

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 fully compensates. It explains each parameter in the Args block: guideid with an example, detail with its two allowed values and default, max_steps explaining that it only applies to detail='full', and lang with an example and mapping to the API's langid parameter. This is far beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 opens with 'Fetch a repair guide by id.' This specifies the exact verb (fetch), the resource (repair guide), and the key identifier (id). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_guides or list_device_guides, which deal with finding guides rather than retrieving a specific one.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (when you have a guide id) and how to choose between detail='summary' and detail='full'. It even advises preferring summary for large guides. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., 'use search_guides to find a guide'). This falls just short of the top tier due to the lack of explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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