get_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the burden of disclosure. It states that the tool returns a complete guide, but does not detail return format, error handling, or any potential side effects. However, as a read-only get operation, the behavior is largely predictable; a 3 is appropriate for a simple, honest description.

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 highly concise: two short sentences, with the primary function front-loaded and a useful cross-reference to list_guides. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what is returned (full guide) and how to obtain valid IDs (list_guides). The lack of an output schema is not a critical gap given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 schema already has a rich description for the 'id' parameter with concrete examples, covering 100% of parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states that the tool returns a full guide by ID, using a clear verb ('returns') and a specific resource ('guide'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning list_guides for discovering available IDs, clarifying its role as a direct lookup.

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 provides a clear usage hint: use list_guides to find IDs before calling get_guide. While it doesn't mention other alternatives like search_docs, it gives sufficient context for when this tool is appropriate.

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