guide

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by framing the tool as one-shot orientation material and by describing that topics include gotchas and interactive forms. Return behavior is left to the output schema, which exists.

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 front-loads its purpose and usage timing, then enumerates topics compactly. The parenthetical examples are dense but each maps to a listed topic, and there is no filler text.

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 read-only guide tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and topic scope. Safety is handled by annotations and return details by the output schema, leaving no critical gaps.

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 topic parameter is already documented as one of patterns, programs, output, fullscreen, sharing, with 'none' listing them. The description adds meaningful detail by expanding each topic with concrete examples such as pipes, gdb, vim, and timeouts.

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 that the tool provides usage guidance and names five topics it covers. It distinguishes itself from action-oriented siblings like run and send by positioning itself as something to call 'before the first real use,' though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 clear timing guidance: 'worth one call before the first real use.' That is a usable when-to-use signal. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare it with the many action-oriented siblings.

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