guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it identifies the payload as a manual/SKILL.md, notes language configuration, and signals size by calling it 'full' and urging a single call. It stops short of stating the return format (markdown vs structured) or an approximate token cost, which matters for a context-heavy doc tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the resource is, then the call condition. The language/topic enumeration is long but earns its place by letting an agent judge whether the manual covers its stack. Slightly dense, no filler.

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 documentation tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is returned, in what language, and when to fetch it. The remaining gap is the shape and size of the returned text, which the description only hints at via 'full' and 'call it once'.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming it needs no input. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level gaps exist.

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?

States a specific resource: the full callgraph manual / SKILL.md in the configured language, and enumerates the coverage areas (CLI examples, JS/TS/Vue, Rust, Swift, Python, Go, formats, limits). This is far more than a restatement of the name 'guide'. It doesn't name a sibling it replaces, but the phrase 'the CLI flags map to these tools' implicitly separates it from the query 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the server instructions are not enough') and a frequency constraint ('call it once'), which is exactly the guidance an agent needs for a large documentation dump. The condition also implies the when-not case: don't call it if the server instructions already suffice.

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