read_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the call is a one-time-per-session read of a static ruleset, and that the payload is a workflow/print-rules document. Return shape need not be explained since an output schema exists. It does not state whether the guide is cached, versioned, or fixed for the session, which would round this out.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing work: what it is, when to call it plus rationale, and what the flag does. The parenthetical resource reference is front-loaded well. Minor redundancy between the resource mention and the 'many clients never load that resource' aside.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, this covers the essentials: what the content is, when to fetch it, and what the flag narrows. The only gap is that it never says whether the content changes during a session, which matters for the 'call it once' instruction.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must define the lone parameter, and it does: essentials=True yields only the short checklist of rules most often skipped. The default/false behavior (full guide) is only implied, not stated, which keeps it below a 5 for a single undocumented parameter.

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 identifies the exact resource being fetched — the workflow and print rules — and ties it to the b123d-print://guide resource, so the agent knows precisely what comes back. It lacks an explicit verb ('retrieve'/'read'), and there is no sibling that overlaps in purpose, so no differentiation statement is needed. Clear but one step short of a model verb+resource statement.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger ('Call it once before the first part in a session') and a rationale (many clients never load the resource), which tells the agent both when and why. It also positions the underlying resource as the alternative for clients that do load resources. No explicit 'when not to use' beyond the implied 'once', but the timing guidance is unusually actionable.

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