get_agent_guide

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does signal the tool is inert reference material read once at conversation start. It also previews the substantive rules the guide contains (confirm before writes, time-boxed forced mode, never guess numbers, do not poll), which tells the agent what to expect without calling. It never explicitly states the call is side-effect-free or idempotent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the core identity and then lists coverage areas. The parenthetical workflow list is long but each item maps to a real sibling-tool cluster, so it earns its space rather than padding.

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?

A zero-parameter reference tool with an output schema, so the description need not explain return values, and it doesn't. It covers purpose, timing, and content scope adequately; the only shortfall is not stating explicitly that the call is read-only and safe to invoke unconditionally.

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 no parameter meaning to add and the baseline applies. The description does not waste space restating a schema it does not have.

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 names a specific resource (the 'Aivy agent playbook') and enumerates its contents: tool routing, write rules, workflows, and error codes. That makes its function unambiguous relative to the many domain-specific siblings like get_status or plan_best_price_discharge, though it never explicitly says 'this is the documentation tool, not a data tool'.

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?

'Read it once at the start of a conversation' gives a clear, actionable trigger for when to call it, which is unusually explicit for a meta tool. It stops short of saying when it should be re-read or when it can be skipped, so no exclusion guidance is offered.

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