Get curated Avalanche guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the content of each guide (e.g., 'addresses, genesis keys and when to use each of the 6 built-in precompiles'), informing the agent what will be returned. It does not mention response format, but for a read-only guide tool this is not a significant omission.

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 fairly long but each part earns its place: the purpose is front-loaded, the six options are compactly listed with explanations, and the final sentence gives routing advice. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure is logical and no information is redundant.

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 one enum parameter and no output schema, this description covers everything needed to call it correctly: what it does, what each option returns, and when to use it versus an alternative. No further details are required.

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 explain the single 'name' parameter. It does so thoroughly by enumerating all six enum values and giving a one-line explanation of each, which is exactly what an agent needs to select correctly. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Return a curated, condensed guide bundled with this server.' It also lists all six available guide names with a short summary of each, making the tool's scope immediately obvious. It explicitly contrasts with avax_search_docs, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

Provides direct guidance: 'Prefer this for orientation, then avax_search_docs for details,' which tells the agent when to use this tool versus an alternative. Each guide description also implies a use case (e.g., troubleshooting for failures, gas-and-fees for fee config), so the agent can pick the right option.

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