get-guidance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns 'most relevant' criteria but does not disclose how many, how relevance is determined, or the return format. This is adequate for a simple query tool but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core functionality, and includes a usage hint. Every word earns its place with no redundancies.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does not explain the output structure or number of results. However, the tool's purpose is clear and it integrates with sibling tools. Minor gap in output explanation.

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% with a description field. The tool description adds concrete examples of valid inputs, which adds value beyond the schema's type and description. This helps an agent understand the expected format.

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's function: given a feature description, return relevant ATAG 2.0 success criteria. The verb 'return' and resource 'ATAG 2.0 success criteria' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search-atag' and 'list-success-criteria' by focusing on relevance mapping.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool: to find which criteria apply when building a specific feature. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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