get_guide

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that it returns the 'full content' of a guide, implying a complete representation rather than metadata or a summary. This reinforces the readOnly and idempotent hints without contradicting them.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 retrieval tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is adequately complete. It specifies the resource, the lookup key, and the full-content nature of the response, though it does not describe error cases or response formatting.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description itself only adds the context of fetching 'by its slug', which aligns with the required parameter without providing additional semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('written guide') and further clarifies the resource type as 'tutorial / conceptual doc'. It clearly distinguishes this from endpoint, SDK, and changelog tools in the sibling list.

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 usage is implied: use this when you need the full content of a guide by slug. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer get_guide over search_docs, nor when groupSlug or projectId should be provided.

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