Get Usage Guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates that the tool provides a guide, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens when topic is null, or what form the response takes. The output schema may describe the return shape, but behavior beyond that is unexplained.

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 one compact sentence plus a topic list, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then gives concrete options for the only parameter.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: an agent can invoke it correctly by picking one of the listed topics. It could be more complete by stating what an omitted topic returns and whether the topic list is exhaustive, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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's topic list ('overview, shortcuts, text_entry, failures, ledger, browser') is the only semantic guidance for the single 'topic' parameter. It compensates for the empty schema by enumerating likely values, though it does not define what each topic contains or explain the null default.

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 title 'Get Usage Guide' and description 'How to use this server well' clearly establish that this tool returns usage documentation for the server. The topic list distinguishes it from the many action-oriented siblings like screenshot, tap, and type_text, though the description itself lacks an explicit verb.

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 phrase 'How to use this server well' implies this should be used when an agent needs orientation or guidance on server features. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or a recommended call order relative to other tools.

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