card_builder_recipe_guide

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

Without annotations, the description effectively communicates that this is a read-only informational tool with no side effects. It explains what it covers (DocumentData layout, block tree, etc.) and its role in relation to build_from_recipe. This is sufficient for an agent to understand its behavior, though it could add details about being static or dynamic.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word adds value, and it efficiently conveys what the tool does and when to use it without any fluff.

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?

Given the tool is a guide with no parameters and a known output schema, the description covers the necessary topics and its relationship with sibling tools. It provides enough context for an agent to understand its role, though it could mention that it's a static reference or if it updates dynamically.

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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 states it's an embedded how-to guide for designing Card Builder cards programmatically. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a reference guide rather than an action-oriented tool, and it explicitly lists the topics covered (DocumentData layout, block tree, etc.), making its purpose specific and distinguishable.

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 explicitly says 'Read this once at the start of a card-building task,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also mentions the recipe shorthand consumed by build_from_recipe, implying the guide is a prerequisite for that tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, though the context makes it reasonably clear.

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