xrp_get_conversation_guidance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool retrieves guidance but gives no details about side effects, prerequisites, or what the response contains. It doesn't even explicitly state it's a read-only operation. This lack of behavioral disclosure is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is purposeful, and there is no redundancy or filler. It achieves maximum clarity with minimal length.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'guidance' will look like or how it should be used, and with no annotations, the agent lacks context on the tool's role. However, the tool is relatively simple, and the description covers its basic purpose, so it is minimally viable.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters, and the description names 'specific XRP operations' which aligns with the 'operation' parameter. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Get conversation prompts and guidance for specific XRP operations'. It identifies a specific resource (conversation prompts) and a scope (specific XRP operations), which differentiates it from sibling tools that execute operations directly. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative or contrast with related tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like 'use this when you need to construct a conversation prompt' or exclude cases where it shouldn't be used. The user must infer usage context from the tool name and description, which is insufficient.

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