get_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly implies a read-only retrieval operation and names the available guide variants, but it does not disclose what the response contains, whether invalid guide names error, or any other runtime behavior.

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 a single, tight sentence that front-loads the operation and immediately lists the valid options with clarifying parentheticals. Every part earns its place and no unnecessary wording is present.

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?

The tool is simple and the parameter is fully documented, so the basic invocation is clear. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description could do more to explain the returned guide format or any relevant usage context for an agent.

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 100%, so the parameter is already documented. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining what each guide covers: 'creating-nodes' is a custom node guide, 'quick-start' is an overview, and 'editor' is the visual editor.

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 the tool retrieves a jam-nodes guide and enumerates the specific available guides. It identifies the resource and the verb well, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like search_docs or get_api_reference.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling alternatives. The description only implies its use for fetching one of the listed guides; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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