pack_authoring_guide

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It clearly states it is a read operation ('Read') and notes the content source ('Same text as the asistonto:// resources'), but it does not explain behavior for invalid topics, the 'all' topic, or the output format. The description adds some context but leaves several behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, no redundant wording. It front-loads the purpose, then gives the resource equivalence, then the topic list. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it easy to scan.

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 simple read-guide tool with an output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, when to use it, and the available topics. The main gap is not specifying behavior for the 'all' topic or error handling, but given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, it is largely 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 schema provides only a bare 'topic' property with no description or enum, so the description's topic list ('pack-format, four-part-questions, paraphrases, calibration, workflow, labels, example, all') is essential and fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage. It effectively enumerates valid values and clarifies the default from the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Read the pack-authoring guidance') and clearly identifies the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_pack by focusing on authoring guidance rather than pack content, and the topic list adds clarity.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: 'for clients that cannot read resources,' which tells when to use this tool. The listed topics imply the scope, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The condition alone provides strong guidance.

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