alt_workflow_guide

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or any other behavioral traits. It only says it returns a guide, implying a read operation, but this is not explicit.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides context. Ideal conciseness.

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 description is too brief given no annotations or output schema. It does not describe the return format, error handling, or typical usage scenarios. For a tool returning a guide, more detail on content and structure is warranted.

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 50%—only 'project_root' has a description. The description does not explain the 'scenario' parameter or its enum values. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it returns an 'Alt-local-model PAIDEIA operating guide' and explains its purpose as mirroring MCP prompts for clients that only expose tools. The verb 'Return' and resource 'operating guide' are specific, but it could be more precise about what the guide contains.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings like 'list_paideia_actions' or 'paideia_doctor'. The mention of 'clients that only expose tools' gives some context but isn't sufficient for distinguishing use cases.

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