list_device_guides

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the projective output, that optional fields are omitted when unavailable, and adds a licensing/usage restriction (CC BY-NC-SA, non-commercial). It does not cover error handling or pagination, but it goes beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the main action, then organizes return format, args, and license note in a logical, compact structure. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no irrelevant content.

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 simple one-parameter list tool, the description covers the essential elements: action, input, output shape, and legal usage. The output schema likely documents return fields, so further detail isn't necessary. Edge cases like empty results or invalid title are not addressed, but they are minor gaps.

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 compensate. It explains the single title parameter with a concrete example ('iPhone'), which is helpful. It stops short of specifying matching rules (exact vs partial) or case sensitivity, but it is clear enough for basic use.

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 a clear, specific verb-resource statement: 'List the repair guides available for a device.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_guide (retrieving a single guide) and search_guides (query-based search), and it also names the return fields, leaving no ambiguity.

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 usage context by specifying that it works 'for a device' and requires a title, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over search_guides or get_guide, nor does it mention exclusions. The guidance is implied, not overt.

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