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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool 'Provides templates and guidance' and emphasizes following the workflow 'exactly to avoid errors,' which hints at behavioral constraints. However, it lacks details on what 'errors' might occur, whether it's read-only or mutative, or any permissions/rate limits, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by instructions. It uses two paragraphs efficiently, with no wasted sentences. However, the second paragraph could be slightly more concise by combining some points, but overall, it's clear and to the point.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description provides good usage guidelines and purpose clarity. However, it lacks details on what the 'guide' output entails (e.g., format, content), and the behavioral aspects are under-specified. For a tool with no structured data, this leaves some contextual gaps, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't discuss parameters, which is appropriate. However, it could slightly improve by noting the lack of inputs, but this is minor; thus, a baseline score of 4 is given for adequate handling in a parameterless context.

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: 'Load guide for creating project steering documents' and specifies the resources involved ('templates and guidance for product.md, tech.md, and structure.md creation'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'spec-workflow-guide' beyond stating 'Not part of standard spec workflow,' which is somewhat indirect.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'Call ONLY when user explicitly requests steering document creation or asks about project architecture docs. Not part of standard spec workflow.' It clearly defines when to use the tool and distinguishes it from alternatives by noting it's not part of the standard workflow, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools.

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